The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: BrownRobin on February 22, 2018, 04:52:28 AM
-
Hi,
My father is an avid amateur astronomer who lives in Maryland and has really grown to love the hobby during his retirement.
He has since writen an article or two (one of them recently published in Astronomy magazine) regarding his favorite portion of astronomy which is exo-planets.
Whenever I have the chance to visit him, he enjoys showing me Saturn, the Moon, Mars, etc.. through his large backyard tracking telescope. The clarity of being able to see features, such as Saturns rings, is pretty amazing.
One of the coolest things we tracked that I saw from his telescope was the International Space Station orbiting Earth. His telescope was high powered enough that we could see the solar panels and center tube.
If Flat Earthers believe space travel is a hoax from NASA, but that we saw a clear ISS orbiting overhead from space, than space travel and man made item(s) orbiting the Earth are not a hoax.
I was wondering if any Flat Earthers have also seen the ISS orbiting via high-powered telescope. It's pretty cool and amazing to see this for yourselves.
-
How do you know it was in orbit?
-
How do you know it was in orbit?
What else could or would it be doing?
-
How do you know it was in orbit?
How do you know it wasn't in orbit?
-
How do you know it was in orbit?
How do you know it wasn't in orbit?
I didn't claim it wasn't in orbit. I was questioning the claim that it was.
-
I didn't claim it wasn't in orbit. I was questioning the claim that it was.
What else could it be, other than in orbit? What other possibility fits with the available evidence?
-
So when you say orbit do you mean its going round and around the world like the rings of Saturn?
-
So when you say orbit do you mean its going round and around the world like the rings of Saturn?
Is that addressed to the room, or to someone in particular?
-
So when you say orbit do you mean its going round and around the world like the rings of Saturn?
Is that addressed to the room, or to someone in particular?
To who's calling the station orbiting. Its hard to answer when one doesn't know what they refer to as an orbit.
-
Dictionary definition;
orbit
1.
the regularly repeated elliptical course of a celestial object or spacecraft about a star or planet. "the Earth's orbit around the sun"
That'll do it for me. The ISS is in orbit. Around the Earth. You can't have an orbit without an orb, globe or sphere to orbit around.
Do I need to define "orb", "globe" and "sphere" now ...? Or "Earth"?
-
This is why I ask.
If you think the satellites are flying around the earth like the rings of Saturn then I have a big surprise for you.
They travel west to east in giant wave formation.
None go over the poles.
I know you don't trust me with just my word so see for your self.
LIVE STREAM SATELLITE TRACKING
http://www.n2yo.com/
-
If you think the satellites are flying around the earth like the rings of Saturn then I have a big surprise for you.
.. but I didn't say anything about the rings of Saturn. Only you did.
And I didn't refer to multiple satellites, either. I referred to the ISS.
-
If you think the satellites are flying around the earth like the rings of Saturn then I have a big surprise for you.
.. but I didn't say anything about the rings of Saturn. Only you did.
And I didn't refer to multiple satellites, either. I referred to the ISS.
Just click on the link and watch the international space station then.
Ask people how they think the ISS orbits.
Almost everyone would say like the rings of Saturn, they would not use that wording but the description they would give would be similar to those same movements.
I don't think to many know they move in waves avoiding the poles altogether
.
-
You seem to be trying to contradict something I didn't say in the first place. I didn't say the ISS went over the poles. I said it's in orbit.
What do your 'waves' look like if you trace them out on an educational globe model? Have you tried that?
-
The ISS is up there and it is moving or we are, that's unquestionable.
My point is the ISS is in an obit but not the orbit people think.
If you go into the link you can track every one of the metal objects flying around and I can't find one that goes in a straight line or one going over a pole north or south.
I have not laid then over and sketched them out but that would be a great idea.
ISS be the best one to do because the issue is there are just under 20000 of them.
-
Why are you so fixated on them going over a pole? And they only appear to travel in waves because that is their 3D elliptical path around the earth projected on to a 2D surface.
-
Why are you so fixated on them going over a pole? And they only appear to travel in waves because that is their 3D elliptical path around the earth projected on to a 2D surface.
To have absolute proof that they can.
Right now I don't think they can because they don't.
If they don't then why?
And a FE answers that question why.
-
My point is the ISS is in an obit but not the orbit people think.
If you go into the link you can track every one of the metal objects flying around and I can't find one that goes in a straight line or one going over a pole north or south.
Yeah, but..... so what?
-
Why are you so fixated on them going over a pole? And they only appear to travel in waves because that is their 3D elliptical path around the earth projected on to a 2D surface.
To have absolute proof that they can.
Right now I don't think they can because they don't.
If they don't then why?
And a FE answers that question why.
What theory allows an object to orbit a flat plane?
And SpaceX literally just launched a satellite into an orbit around the poles today.
-
And SpaceX literally just launched a satellite into an orbit around the poles today.
That is great news. Give us its NORAD ID so we can track it.
-
I'm glad to hear you accept NORAD tracking IDs. I couldn't find one for a launch today, but the GRACE satellite is in a polar orbit, NORAD id 27391.
https://www.n2yo.com/?s=27391
-
Why are you so fixated on them going over a pole? And they only appear to travel in waves because that is their 3D elliptical path around the earth projected on to a 2D surface.
To have absolute proof that they can.
Right now I don't think they can because they don't.
If they don't then why?
And a FE answers that question why.
This is inaccurate, as there are quite a lot of satellites that do orbit over the poles, including the Iridium satellite constellation, which has over 60 active satellites orbiting over the poles, and has been orbiting for over 2 decades. These satellites are used for data coverage to satellite phones (along with other uses) and disproves your theory. The site you showed only seemed to be able to show a single satellite at a time, meaning that it would be very time consuming to find any polar orbiting satellites, which is probably why you didn't find any. Most satellites will generally not orbit over the poles as it uses more energy to orbit in a completely different direction to the rotation of the Earth, and it is difficult to get permanent coverage from a polar orbiting satellite. Hopefully this helped.
-
Look at SpaceX's launches. They go East from Florida when aiming for non-polar orbits, and South from Vandenberg when aiming for polar orbit with the likes of Iridium.
BTW, they have around 14 more scheduled for this year, including two more Falcon Heavy launches (i.e. the Tesla in space wasn't a fluke, nor a hoax)
-
And SpaceX literally just launched a satellite into an orbit around the poles today.
That is great news. Give us its NORAD ID so we can track it.
You have google like everyone else. I'm sure you're smart enough to find it. You still didn't answer how an object could orbit a flat plane. That wasn't sarcasm, I'm genuinely interested.
-
I'm glad to hear you accept NORAD tracking IDs. I couldn't find one for a launch today, but the GRACE satellite is in a polar orbit, NORAD id 27391.
https://www.n2yo.com/?s=27391
Douglips your the man. Thanks. Would have taken weeks looking for one that does that.
So I clicked on Grace and sure enough it shows it going over the poles so I watched it do a whole revolution and weird things came up.
You can click on the box on the bottom of the screen that says "show foot print".
I take it that its the area the satellite works for on earth. But when you watch the area it changes massively from the poles to the equator. Makes no sense. And I do mean its a mass difference in size. Why isn't it the same cover size everywhere? Watch it and see for yourselves.
Other things stuck out at me as weird, one is the land mass size.
It shows Greenland the same size if not bigger then Africa.
Greenland is 2.15 million km2 and Africa is 30.37 million km2.
Greenland can fit into Africa 15 times yet on the tracking system they make it close to the same size.
Far away from a honest representation.
Whats up with that?
So I looked at South America, Its 17.94 million km2, just over half the size of Africa but the maps shows the same result which makes South America bigger then it should be against Africa. To me its not as drastic as the Greenland size different but it looks to be at lease 30% difference.
Then there is the distance the satellite is traveling. When you mark its travel route things get interesting.
Mark the distance it travels from the equator to the turning point at the poles, its the same distance from the top of Greenland to the top of Antarctica.
Then if you put a string on a globe from the top of Greenland to the top of Antarctica and then transfer the string to the equator and over the pole to measure the distance to where the tuning point is for the satellite the string goes right past the poles and indicates the satellite is turning around half way between the pole and the equator.
If this was the case then why doesn't that area that it turns around in light up as the satellites foot print as I described.
Grace is very confusing.
-
You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat
-
You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat
Its hard to take anything into account that would make a 1500% difference between Greenland and Africa.
From there model to real life size.
-
You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat
Its had to take anything into account that would make a 1500% difference between Greenland and Africa.
From there model to real life size.
Its complicated but I'll try to explain.
Im not a map maker by trade so I couldnt personally make one. But the globe map is rubbish as hundreds of planes go the wrong route very often and have to turn and go back to get their bearings. This because of navigation bias that increases quantum uncertainty the further the distance is between locations. Islands or continents have higher density than much of the ocean so they will have more atoms with particles in a superposition. Meaning the continents or land masses have higher overall probability of being in either two places at once (not very likely but this what causes a lot of planes to get confused about where their destinations are). Plus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means it is difficult to know position and momentum at the same time.
Since continents moment-ems are fairly static their position is also less certain. This makes a non-dynamic fixed distance global map of the earth unworkable. Now there is some complicated quantum geometry involved which I wont do into know, but you can use it to calculate a workable probability of distance range between destinations which varies enormously depending on land density at take of points. and density and superposition variations on the route between points. This will calculate a likely trajectory for navigating between positions and continents. There is still much we dont know like why pilot confusion and flight path reversals are particularly high around the region of China. Maybe you might be able to explain that? As renowned scientific and quantum innovator Deepak Chopra once wisdom-ed "We are all energies as one and with an entangled existence in the probabilistic nature of quantum fields" The laws of physics are much more simple than Einsteins UNWORKABLE model. Maths makes things a workable model if you discard antiquated notions that do not unify in a single theory. Things are a workable model if you open your mind to wonderful dynamism of the quantum world. Its mostly statistics really. So usable maps are constructed on a journey by journey basis as the routes are dynamic based upon my stated variables. Globalist maps are not helpful apart from on an aesthetic level. Just because a globe looks pretty sure as hell doesn't make it reality. And worth noting the dome is usually transparent when then suns second spotlight isn't reflecting back off it.
-
You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat
Its had to take anything into account that would make a 1500% difference between Greenland and Africa.
From there model to real life size.
Its complicated but I'll try to explain.
Im not a map maker by trade so I couldnt personally make one. But the globe map is rubbish as hundreds of planes go the wrong route very often and have to turn and go back to get their bearings. This because of navigation bias that increases quantum uncertainty the further the distance is between locations. Islands or continents have higher density than much of the ocean so they will have more atoms with particles in a superposition. Meaning the continents or land masses have higher overall probability of being in either two places at once (not very likely but this what causes a lot of planes to get confused about where their destinations are). Plus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means it is difficult to know position and momentum at the same time.
Scientific sounding jabbering aside, how about some evidence for your first claim here, at the very least. Then we can maybe tackle how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't applicable at the scales being discussed. But first I would just LOVE to see anything corroborating this idea that hundreds of planes 'turn and go back to get their bearings' with some unmentioned frequency, and this happens more often above China.
-
You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat
Its hard to take anything into account that would make a 1500% difference between Greenland and Africa.
From there model to real life size.
You're running into the same problem that's plagued cartographers for centuries — how to make a 2D representation of the surface of a 3D object. Google and N2YO use what's called a Mercator projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection) which has the benefit of conserving ship bearings (moving in a straight line in reality will cause you to move in a straight line on the map) but it has the flaw of drastically distorting the area of land the further away from the equator it gets.
If the N2YO website used a 3D globe instead of a map, it would be harder to read but Greenland would the right size and the satellite's foot print would stay a constant size.
-
You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat
Its had to take anything into account that would make a 1500% difference between Greenland and Africa.
From there model to real life size.
Its complicated but I'll try to explain.
Im not a map maker by trade so I couldnt personally make one. But the globe map is rubbish as hundreds of planes go the wrong route very often and have to turn and go back to get their bearings. This because of navigation bias that increases quantum uncertainty the further the distance is between locations. Islands or continents have higher density than much of the ocean so they will have more atoms with particles in a superposition. Meaning the continents or land masses have higher overall probability of being in either two places at once (not very likely but this what causes a lot of planes to get confused about where their destinations are). Plus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means it is difficult to know position and momentum at the same time.
Scientific sounding jabbering aside, how about some evidence for your first claim here, at the very least. Then we can maybe tackle how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't applicable at the scales being discussed. But first I would just LOVE to see anything corroborating this idea that hundreds of planes 'turn and go back to get their bearings' with some unmentioned frequency, and this happens more often above China.
I can just imagine this at a cartographer's conference. "Does your proposed projection take account of quantum uncertainty?"
-
I just watched the ISS do a orbit around earth on http://www.n2yo.com/
I printed out a FE map and then marked the ISS orbit on a FE.
If you look at the orbit of the ISS on an ball earth you will see it does waves. Why and how it does it I don't know.
If you look at the obit of the ISS on the flat earth then you will see it does a oval/circle type orbit.
What I also want to point out is that both the satellite tracking google earth maps are not accurate and the FE map is not accurate.
I make these conclusions based on square km's of land mass.
Australia – 7.69 million km2
Africa - 30.37 million km2
South America - 17.84 million km2
North America - 24.71 million km2
Greenland - 2.166 million km2
Africa and South America are relatively close, google search states 2,575 km apart from closest points.
If I use google earth ruler I get 2859.5 km.
9.94% difference
Both maps show sizing errors based on the land sq. km.
The ball earth shows more drastic errors then the FE maps.
(http://)
My guess here is the FE map orbiting cycle of the ISS would be more of a perfect circle if the FE maps are corrected to size and scale.
-
I just watched the ISS do a orbit around earth on http://www.n2yo.com/
I printed out a FE map and then marked the ISS orbit on a FE.
If you look at the orbit of the ISS on an ball earth you will see it does waves. Why and how it does it I don't know.
If you look at the obit of the ISS on the flat earth then you will see it does a oval/circle type orbit.
What I also want to point out is that both the satellite tracking google earth maps are not accurate and the FE map is not accurate.
I make these conclusions based on square km's of land mass.
Australia – 7.69 million km2
Africa - 30.37 million km2
South America - 17.84 million km2
North America - 24.71 million km2
Greenland - 2.166 million km2
Africa and South America are relatively close, google search states 2,575 km apart from closest points.
If I use google earth ruler I get 2859.5 km.
9.94% difference
Both maps show sizing errors based on the land sq. km.
The ball earth shows more drastic errors then the FE maps.
My guess here is the FE map orbiting cycle of the ISS would be more of a perfect circle if the FE maps are corrected to size and scale.
Here you go friend: http://www.satflare.com/track.asp?q=25544#TOP
Here's the ISS's orbit projected over a globe: it's a perfect ellipse. The sin wave on a map is the result of this phenomenon:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Sine_curve_drawing_animation.gif)
And as mentioned above, trying to take measure accurate distances on a flattened out version of the surface of a sphereoid is obviously going to have some distortion. Try your math again on a globe (or a 3D model of one) and it'll all add up.
-
That explains the wave on a ball earth.
Interesting how a ball and flat earth can still maintain an objections obit.
The math was done on a global ruler so why should it not be accurate? They state it accounts for the curvature of the earth.
Why does google earth portray Greenland 1500% bigger then in real life?
If I hired a map maker and they gave 1500% inaccuracy they would be fired a long time ago.
Why is it when I go to WIKI and punch in Greenland that they have a global earth giving the accurate size of Greenland to the rest of the world yet the satellite tracking systems don't?
WIKI having more accurate information them the space program is a giant joke all in itself.
I have a slow old grandpa of a computer with windows xp and it only has days to go before being replaced.
When I clicked on the site link you posted above I got the back ground picture under the worded script first for a few seconds before it loaded the wording on top of the picture of the earth as the underlay.
Believe it or not the picture was of a flat earth.
-
I captured the back ground photo of the satellites tracking site.
Put a flat edge on the horizon. Dead flat.
At a claimed 8 inch per mile on the curved earth surface there should be a curve visible to the eye.
(http://)
-
I captured the back ground photo of the satellites tracking site.
Put a flat edge on the horizon. Dead flat.
At a claimed 8 inch per mile on the curved earth surface there should be a curve visible to the eye.
(http://)
What is the distance between the 2 ends of the picture? What curve size would you expect?
-
That explains the wave on a ball earth.
Interesting how a ball and flat earth can still maintain an objections obit.
The math was done on a global ruler so why should it not be accurate? They state it accounts for the curvature of the earth.
Why does google earth portray Greenland 1500% bigger then in real life?
If I hired a map maker and they gave 1500% inaccuracy they would be fired a long time ago.
Why is it when I go to WIKI and punch in Greenland that they have a global earth giving the accurate size of Greenland to the rest of the world yet the satellite tracking systems don't?
WIKI having more accurate information them the space program is a giant joke all in itself.
I have a slow old grandpa of a computer with windows xp and it only has days to go before being replaced.
When I clicked on the site link you posted above I got the back ground picture under the worded script first for a few seconds before it loaded the wording on top of the picture of the earth as the underlay.
Believe it or not the picture was of a flat earth.
As I explained above, it's impossible to create a flat map that's completely accurate in every way, because the Earth isn't flat. Cartographers instead have to chose one or two things to do accurately and accept that the rest will be skewed.
Do you want area to be accurate like you've been mentioning? You can use a Mollweide projection:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Mollweide_projection_SW.jpg)
In this areas are right but the shape of landforms at high latitudes is pretty skewed.
Do you want easy determination of latitude and longitude? You can use an equirectangular projection which maps longitude to the x-axis and latitude to the y-axis:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Equirectangular_projection_SW.jpg)
But this also skews the shapes pretty drastically.
Google and many others use a Mercator projection which conserves straight lines. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection
You're trying to use the inability of a 2D map to accurately show the whole Earth as a knock against the globe Earth theory, but honestly it's huge evidence for it. Ever wonder why there's no universally agreed upon flat Earth map? It's because one is physically impossible.
Last thing: I know you purposefully chose an image with as little horizon showing as possible to try to prove your point, but even still you can see a faint curve if you put up a straight edge. The edges here are slightly further away from the red line than the middle.
(https://imgur.com/N8GTe0D.jpg)
-
I captured the back ground photo of the satellites tracking site.
Put a flat edge on the horizon. Dead flat.
At a claimed 8 inch per mile on the curved earth surface there should be a curve visible to the eye.
(https://imgur.com/zVyFWLe.png)
I grabbed a higher quality picture from the website and got out photoshop to do some pixel counting to prove it to you. This is only a tiny percentage of the horizon so it's hard to see, but the curve is still there.
Also notice, if this were the whole Earth it would be incredibly small. Either that or that's the world's largest and tallest cloud.
-
Does that picture have an elevation and a location that it was shot at?
I am not computer smart enough to access it if it had. maybe you are. I am old.
If we can find those then maybe we can figure out how long that horizon is.
At 8 in drop per mile then 10 miles of horizon should have a 6.66ft drop. (number of the beast)
I would think that the horizon in the photo is at least 100 miles long.
If it is then that is a 66.6ft difference.
-
I found a much better example to use then the top photo.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosphere.html
(http://)
The Earth's atmosphere is an extremely thin sheet of air extending from the surface of the Earth to the edge of space. The Earth is a sphere with a roughly 8000 mile diameter; the thickness of the atmosphere is about 60 miles. In this picture, taken from a spacecraft orbiting at 200 miles above the surface, we can see the atmosphere as the thin blue band between the surface and the blackness of space.
-
Does that picture have an elevation and a location that it was shot at?
I am not computer smart enough to access it if it had. maybe you are. I am old.
If we can find those then maybe we can figure out how long that horizon is.
At 8 in drop per mile then 10 miles of horizon should have a 6.66ft drop. (number of the beast)
I would think that the horizon in the photo is at least 100 miles long.
If it is then that is a 66.6ft difference.
We can estimate it pretty easily. The horizon is 950 pixels long, with 6 pixels of drop on either side. That picture appears to be from low Earth orbit, which means the distance to the horizon is about 1,400 miles.
Breaking out the simple geometry, you can find the radius of an arc based on height and width via:
r = H / 2 + W^2 / 8H
Plugging in my pixel-counting values:
r = 6p / 2 + (950p)^2 / 8(6p) = 18,805 p
This lets us turn pixels into distance since we have the radius in both values:
1,400 mi / 18,805 p = length / 950 p
Length = 70 miles
We should then see about 815 ft of curvature on either side of the picture away from the center given that both are 35 miles away from the middle. 815ft / (70mi*5280ft/mi) = 0.2% of the total distance.
That's why it's barely visible.
-
I think you are right and the arc will not be detected at that high.
Lets go to the last picture from NASA. I measured roughly maybe you can measure more accurate with pixels.
Measure the atmosphere then you get the 60 mile perspective.
With that perspective the minimum horizon length shows to be 1320 miles.
I simply divide the atmosphere longest distance as 60 miles into the horizon length to get 1320 miles.
Not 100% but close.
Then measure the arc distance the earth has on the photo by placing a flat edge from horizon to horizon.
The distance you get of the arc is roughly 4 times the distance of the atmosphere.
60 miles divided by 4 gives you 15 miles.
So the arc in a distance of 1320 mile long horizon is 15 miles as the map shows.
But at 8 in per mile at 1320 miles give you an arc of 880ft. That is .1666 of a mile.
That's to big a difference.
This NASA picture has made the arc to big.
-
I think you are right and the arc will not be detected at that high.
Lets go to the last picture from NASA. I measured roughly maybe you can measure more accurate with pixels.
Measure the atmosphere then you get the 60 mile perspective.
With that perspective the minimum horizon length shows to be 1320 miles.
I simply divide the atmosphere longest distance as 60 miles into the horizon length to get 1320 miles.
Not 100% but close.
Then measure the arc distance the earth has on the photo by placing a flat edge from horizon to horizon.
The distance you get of the arc is roughly 4 times the distance of the atmosphere.
60 miles divided by 4 gives you 15 miles.
So the arc in a distance of 1320 mile long horizon is 15 miles as the map shows.
But at 8 in per mile at 1320 miles give you an arc of 880ft. That is .1666 of a mile.
That's to big a difference.
This NASA picture has made the arc to big.
Last one I'll do because it's time consuming and I can't imagine it's convincing anyone:
(https://imgur.com/VkxUBfq.png)
This one isn't high enough resolution for fine pixel counting, but that 2.9% looks about right from what we can see.
Anyway, moving away from that, why do you think the flat Earth movement hasn't been able to provide a single universally agreed upon flat Earth map? All round Earthers have agreed on one single globe for hundreds and hundreds of years. Yet even the most popular FE model has huge discrepancies (see my post here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8995.0)
-
So when you say orbit do you mean its going round and around the world like the rings of Saturn?
Is that addressed to the room, or to someone in particular?
To who's calling the station orbiting. Its hard to answer when one doesn't know what they refer to as an orbit.
Orbit is a well used and well-known term. What part don't you get?
https://www.google.com/search?q=orbit&oq=orbit&aqs=chrome..0j69i57j69i65j69i61j0l2.3023j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
-
"460 miles leads to 26.7 miles of curve away from the center."
I am confused at that number.
460 miles @ 8 inch drop per mile works out to be 306.66 feet drop over 460 miles.
-
"460 miles leads to 26.7 miles of curve away from the center."
I am confused at that number.
460 miles @ 8 inch drop per mile works out to be 306.66 feet drop over 460 miles.
A flat 8" drop per mile would mean the horizon is a triangle. The high point at the center of your vision and a slight constant negative drop away. Instead you need to pull out a pen and do some simple geometry:
(http://earthcurvature.com/images/earth_curvature_calculator_formula.png)
Here the circumference of the Earth is 24,875 mi. Thus:
a = (360° / 24,875) * d
h = 3,959 * (1 - cos a)
Then to find h, just plug and chug.
-
"460 miles leads to 26.7 miles of curve away from the center."
I am confused at that number.
460 miles @ 8 inch drop per mile works out to be 306.66 feet drop over 460 miles.
First, the rule of thumb is 8 inches per miles SQUARED, not just 8 inches per mile. Second, it's just a rule of thumb approximation because the real formula would involve trigonometry.
-
I just watched the ISS do a orbit around earth on http://www.n2yo.com/
I printed out a FE map and then marked the ISS orbit on a FE.
If you look at the orbit of the ISS on an ball earth you will see it does waves. Why and how it does it I don't know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyfEffMrglI
EDIT : Oh, I just saw that this video also explain why Greenland and Africa looks similar in size in some maps (if this wasn't explained enough already).
-
Put the satellites path on a FE map and they to go around in big circles.
-
Put the satellites path on a FE map and they to go around in big circles.
Cool. Can you show me the FE map? The one on the wiki seems in dispute, and I read something from the FE Tom guy along the lines of "we don't have the technology to produce accurate FE maps". Even better if you can show the satellite paths on it. Thanks.
-
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.
-
Put the satellites path on a FE map and they to go around in big circles.
They are circles in round earth too.
Did you even watch the video I posted?
-
Put the satellites path on a FE map and they to go around in big circles.
But here's the problem. There's no aspect of the FE theory that says they should have to go in circles. For heliocentricism, ellipses are the only stable orbits, so without fail everything needs to be orbiting in an ellipse unless it actively has some external force working on it. It's the mathematical byproduct of an object with some large fixed momentum constantly accelerating towards the center of a massive body. That explains why all satellites move like that.
FE on the other hand has no such rules. I've seen multiple explanations for visible satellites: drones flown by NASA, holograms, weather balloons, et cetera, and none of them need a circular orbit. It would be way better for you if you discovered their orbits weren't elliptical, since there's no reason for them to be in your model.
-
I just noticed that that doesn't even make sense, because I thought FE reject the idea of the existence of satellite (or grounded satellite whatever).
So why are you arguing with us about that?
-
All satellites use Polaris as there center.
They do not use earth.
Everything obits around Polaris.
Everything. Every star, moon, planet, web site, turd, liberal, etc.
Its easy to make something obit when everything orbits. Just put it up there and it will obit.
Why do people comment that FE don't believe in satellites?
Some do and some don't.
Hard to doubt them when you can see them but hey, 2 pac still plays concerts right?
If there is a dome then what else is a satellite to do?
How many satellites drifted off course into outer space?
Not one ever.
Why when the RE moves at ridiculous speeds is there no drag on the dark side of earth?
We learn that the earth is moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. It covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour.
A satellite is at its outer most limits with just enough energy to keep orbit for decades around earth but in that sensitive environment has no impact from being in front of an object that traveling at thousands of a miles per hours compared to being at the tail of the object traveling thousands of miles per hours.
That does not happen in real life. All you have to do to prove it is ride in a roller coaster in the front seat and then do the same ride in the back set. We have the same gravity with different g force. Why doesn't that happen on a RE with satellites?
I believe a true FE map can be draw using the satellites imagines they give.
And yes I don't think there is a true flat earth map or any for that matter. Well there is one or two but its in the bottom of the Vatican library. Thank you book burning days. Vatican also has the best telescope on the planet yet they give zero info out.
If one took the time and marked the orbital path of a satellite and when it crosses over a land mass on the RE model and then transferred the info to a FE map and rewrote the FE boundaries as a orbital path on a FE map then I think we would have an accurate map.
FE or RE I don't care, I just want the truth.
-
Your very first point is wrong according to most FE ideas. Everything does not orbit Polaris. Planets orbit around the sun. To claim they don't is rather easily shown to have holes with retrograde motion. As well, stars in the southern hemisphere appear to circle/orbit the southern Cross, not Polaris.
-
A satellite is at its outer most limits with just enough energy to keep orbit for decades around earth but in that sensitive environment has no impact from being in front of an object that traveling at thousands of a miles per hours compared to being at the tail of the object traveling thousands of miles per hours.
That does not happen in real life. All you have to do to prove it is ride in a roller coaster in the front seat and then do the same ride in the back set. We have the same gravity with different g force. Why doesn't that happen on a RE with satellites?
I don't know what you mean.
The satellites are orbiting a planet, so it going the same speed as the planet.
A very simple observation would be to take the train, stand up, and just notice that you are not ejected from the train.
Another one would be the hula hoop. If you start hooping and then move, the ring just keep spinning the same way, without being influenced by your movement.
Another one would be the "spill not". I'll just let the video talk for me on this one (move to around 3:00 for the actual demo):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw7a-vJqY_0
It's called momentum and it has been proved to be a reliable physic concept.
The same happens for satellite in orbit.
-
Why would you market that thing to people at home?
Surely you'd manufacture larger ones and sell them to pubs, so people can carry 8 pints to their table without spilling them?
-
It more like a science gadget than anything else. But this is absolutely not the point of my post.
-
All satellites use Polaris as there center.
They do not use earth.
Everything obits around Polaris.
Everything. Every star, moon, planet, web site, turd, liberal, etc.
But Polaris isn't even at true North. It's about .75 degrees off true North. To say everything orbits Polaris would be crazy because Polaris isn't motionless in the sky relative to observers, it moves slightly. (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a2509c1160258c75cdf91277a61caf96-c)
-
Celestial navigation
A variation on terrestrial celestial navigation was used to help orient the Apollo spacecraft en route to and from the Moon. To this day, space missions, such as the Mars Exploration Rover use star trackers to determine the attitude of the spacecraft. If one believes in the Mars space race.
Intercontinental ballistic missiles use celestial navigation to check and correct their course.
While celestial navigation is becoming increasingly redundant with the advent of inexpensive and highly accurate satellite navigation receivers its still used for compass calibration.
Star Trackers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_tracker
A star tracker is an optical device that measures the positions of stars using photocells or a camera.[1] As the positions of many stars have been measured by astronomers to a high degree of accuracy, a star tracker on a satellite or spacecraft may be used to determine the orientation (or attitude) of the spacecraft with respect to the stars.
If planet's obit the sun then there must be a photo of it like the planets and stars orbiting Polaris.
The sun is on the horizon but I don't see any thing orbiting it.
(http://)
-
Celestial navigation
A variation on terrestrial celestial navigation was used to help orient the Apollo spacecraft en route to and from the Moon. To this day, space missions, such as the Mars Exploration Rover use star trackers to determine the attitude of the spacecraft. If one believes in the Mars space race.
Intercontinental ballistic missiles use celestial navigation to check and correct their course.
While celestial navigation is becoming increasingly redundant with the advent of inexpensive and highly accurate satellite navigation receivers its still used for compass calibration.
Star Trackers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_tracker
A star tracker is an optical device that measures the positions of stars using photocells or a camera.[1] As the positions of many stars have been measured by astronomers to a high degree of accuracy, a star tracker on a satellite or spacecraft may be used to determine the orientation (or attitude) of the spacecraft with respect to the stars.
If planet's obit the sun then there must be a photo of it like the planets and stars orbiting Polaris.
The sun is on the horizon but I don't see any thing orbiting it.
(http://)
With your naked eye and no knowledge of astronomy it is quite difficult to see anything orbiting the sun. Luckily we have tools like telescopes and certain people are quite adept when it comes to astronomy.
They can certainly show you planets orbit the sun if you ask them to.
-
Well I am asking.
-
Well I am asking.
If you want first-hand knowledge you are going to have to go to an observatory or look up a local astronomy club or something like that. This isn't the place, especially if you aren't inclined to believe someone else's written word.
If you like, you can begin your research here: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-solar-system/planet-orbits.html
If you want to discard the information because big bad NASA is involved, that's fine. Provide some peer reviewed evidence that the planets do not orbit the sun instead.
Edit: and to clarify, you are correct that the objects in the photo provided are not orbiting the sun. Those are mostly going to be other stars orbiting the super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, or other galaxies comprised of billions of stars so far away that they appear as a single point of light to the naked eye. They absolutely are not orbiting Polaris, and they only appear to be because of our perspective.
-
Well I am asking.
There's are two very easy to see objects that clearly orbit the sun: Mercury and Venus. Because both orbit around the sun at a much closer distance than the Earth, they are always near the Sun in the sky. Specifically, Mercury is always within 28° of the Sun along the ecliptic and Venus (the 4th brightest thing in the sky behind the Sun, Moon, and ISS) is always within 46°. That's why you can only see these two shortly after sunset or shortly before sunrise. If you want to see them for yourself, I recommend downloading a free star-gazing app on your smartphone which makes finding them a breeze.
If they didn't orbit the Sun and merely orbited the Earth or Polaris or whatever, there'd be no reason for this to be the case. In fact, funnily enough, this lead to some serious confusion back in the good old days before we figured out the shape of the solar system since geocentric orbits couldn't explain Venus's locations. Because of this, the Greeks thought Venus was two planets: Phosphorus, the Morning Star and Hesperus, the Evening Star.
This is just another in a long line of examples where heliocentricism explains our observations perfectly while FE comes up short.
-
So no photo of your claim them?
-
So no photo of your claim them?
In order for a photo to explain something you need to understand what it shows. We need to make sure that you understand what is in that long-exposure photo of Polaris -- do you think all of those objects are actually orbiting Polaris?
-
In order for a photo to explain something you need to understand what it shows. We need to make sure that you understand what is in that long-exposure photo of Polaris -- do you think all of those objects are actually orbiting Polaris?
What I see is Polaris is not orbiting any of the millions of them.
I would like to see a photo of the sun doing the same thing Polaris is doing.
If everything obits the sun then a simple photo should show it so just please show me the photo.
-
???
You can't show movement using a static photo. What do you expect?
-
What theory allows an object to orbit a flat plane?
I guess the important thing is, with no thrusters or driving force of any kind, what is accelerating this space station upwards at the same rate as we are (the acceleration that gives us our illusion of gravity....ie 1g). A force is necessary and it isnt connected to the ground.
-
In order for a photo to explain something you need to understand what it shows. We need to make sure that you understand what is in that long-exposure photo of Polaris -- do you think all of those objects are actually orbiting Polaris?
What I see is Polaris is not orbiting any of the millions of them.
I would like to see a photo of the sun doing the same thing Polaris is doing.
If everything obits the sun then a simple photo should show it so just please show me the photo.
First of all, "everything" does not orbit the sun. An infinitesimally small portion of the universe orbits the sun, that being our solar system. Again, I want to make it clear to you that absolutely none of the objects that appear to be "orbiting" around Polaris in that photo are actually orbiting around Polaris. They are either other stars in our galaxy orbiting the supermassive black hole at its center, or entire galaxies that are so far away that they appear as a single point of light to the naked eye.
Second, for us to be able to provide the picture you are asking for we would need to be a huge distance away from the Sun -- we're talking lightyears. For reference, Polaris itself is 433 lightyears away from Earth.
-
In order for a photo to explain something you need to understand what it shows. We need to make sure that you understand what is in that long-exposure photo of Polaris -- do you think all of those objects are actually orbiting Polaris?
What I see is Polaris is not orbiting any of the millions of them.
I would like to see a photo of the sun doing the same thing Polaris is doing.
If everything obits the sun then a simple photo should show it so just please show me the photo.
If everything orbits Polaris, then why do you see this looking South from NSW, Australia?
(https://imgur.com/0qFfgHq.jpg)
The problem with the picture that you're asking for is that you'd need to have a camera dozens of AU "above" the Solar System to see it. Impossible right? Wrong. You're lucky, thankfully NASA is one step ahead of us here. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977, and by 1990 it was about 40 AU away at a pretty steep angle, shown here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Voyager_1_-_14_February_1990.png/1024px-Voyager_1_-_14_February_1990.png)
At this point, it turned its cameras and took a "family portrait" of the Solar System. This had to be done in multiple shots, because it was so far away that basically a telescope needed to be used to see each small planet, but here's the resulting collage: (https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/solar_system/solar_family.jpg)
It shows all of the planets in the exact locations the heliocentric model predicts:
(https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/solar_system/family_diagram.jpg)
Ok, we've answered all your questions and provided photo evidence, now answer us this. How do you explain that all the stars rotate around Sigma Octanis in the South. Surely the simplest explanation is that the stars are relatively static, and we're the one who's spinning? There's no other way to geometrically explain that.
-
Where there is a head there is a tail.
In other words the southern photo is the ass.
zin zang
Your NASA fake space photos proves nothing when NASA is the leader in RE conspiracy.
Any one on earth with a time lapse camera can take a photo showing every star going around Polaris yet you need a NASA photo which no one else
can duplicate to prove everyone on earths photo is wrong?
NASA them self claims they use Polaris as their guide. They don't use the sun.
Why would they not use the sun is it was the center?
Put a filter on your camera and do a time lapse of the sun and see what obits it.
-
Where there is a head there is a tail.
In other words the southern photo is the ass.
zin zang
Your NASA fake space photos proves nothing when NASA is the leader in RE conspiracy.
Any one on earth with a time lapse camera can take a photo showing every star going around Polaris yet you need a NASA photo which no one else
can duplicate to prove everyone on earths photo is wrong?
NASA them self claims they use Polaris as their guide. They don't use the sun.
Why would they not use the sun is it was the center?
Put a filter on your camera and do a time lapse of the sun and see what obits it.
Look man. You need to figure out what an orbit actually is before you continue this argument. Again, nothing in your photo orbits Polaris.
Start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
The exact evidence you asked for has been provided. You can accept it, or you can stick your head in the sand.
-
Where there is a head there is a tail.
In other words the southern photo is the ass.
zin zang
Try this - sit on one of those office chairs that spins in your house, and spin. Look around you, and you'll see that there is one spot directly overhead that isn't moving. Does that mean your house is orbiting that one spot?
If you then tilt your chair to a different angle and spin it, does that mean your house is now orbiting the new stationary point?
Your NASA fake space photos proves nothing when NASA is the leader in RE conspiracy.
Any one on earth with a time lapse camera can take a photo showing every star going around Polaris yet you need a NASA photo which no one else
can duplicate to prove everyone on earths photo is wrong?
No, you're wrong. Everybody on earth can take a picture that shows every star INCLUDING POLARIS, spining around the celestial pole.
https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/photo/long-exposure-polaris-star-trails-high-res-stock-photography/121831180
Seriously - look at that link and see that Polaris is also "orbiting".
NASA them self claims they use Polaris as their guide. They don't use the sun.
Why would they not use the sun is it was the center?
What are you talking about? When did Nasa say this?
If you're talking about celestial navigation, it's because the sun is too close to you to be used as a guide for more than a day or so - as you orbit the sun, its apparent position changes. The stars are far enough away that no matter how you move, the stars don't move much. They do move a TINY BIT, but not enough to make them less useful for navigation.
Put a filter on your camera and do a time lapse of the sun and see what obits it.
You can see mercury and venus orbiting the sun. Here's an animation of what you'd observe of Mercury's orbit. The ellipse has been left in for you to see it.
https://astronomynow.com/2016/04/13/catch-a-glimpse-of-planet-mercury-at-its-best-in-the-evening-twilight/
Venus is the same thing.
Now, imagine for a moment that Earth also orbits the sun - what would that look like? Hint: Exactly what we see year in and year out.
Now - imagine more distant planets - what would their path across the sky look like? They basically go in a circle around us, with a pause to go backwards a little each year as Earth goes speeding by them, since their orbit is much slower than Earth's.
-
Where there is a head there is a tail.
In other words the southern photo is the ass.
zin zang
Your NASA fake space photos proves nothing when NASA is the leader in RE conspiracy.
Any one on earth with a time lapse camera can take a photo showing every star going around Polaris yet you need a NASA photo which no one else
can duplicate to prove everyone on earths photo is wrong?
NASA them self claims they use Polaris as their guide. They don't use the sun.
Why would they not use the sun is it was the center?
Put a filter on your camera and do a time lapse of the sun and see what obits it.
As I often mention here, to be a FE'er you have to ignore anyone living near the equator or south of it. They do not matter. If you like to think the sky revolves around the north pole, that is great except you are slapping the faces of people who live somewhere different than you.
-
Where there is a head there is a tail.
In other words the southern photo is the ass.
zin zang
Your NASA fake space photos proves nothing when NASA is the leader in RE conspiracy.
Any one on earth with a time lapse camera can take a photo showing every star going around Polaris yet you need a NASA photo which no one else
can duplicate to prove everyone on earths photo is wrong?
NASA them self claims they use Polaris as their guide. They don't use the sun.
Why would they not use the sun is it was the center?
Put a filter on your camera and do a time lapse of the sun and see what obits it.
You claim NASA is lying, yet you've provided zero proof of such whatsoever. Earlier in this thread you tried to claim Google maps didn't make sense because they couldn't represent a 3D object on a 2D plane, and then tried to use photos taken from the ISS that didn't *feel* right to you, but I showed that all of those were consistent with the standard round Earth theory with basic geometry.
So where is it? If NASA is lying, where's the evidence? You can't just make a claim and not support it.
By the way, you should reflect on how all of your pro-FE arguments are either heavily flawed when examined with math, are based on your intuition instead of real science, or rely on massive conspiracies when you can't provide any counter arguments to the heliocentric model. Could there be a reason all the support for one is so heavily flawed while the arguments for the other are air tight?
-
This is where it's impossible to win the argument
FE: I don't believe 'x'. Show me photographic proof.
RE: OK, here.
FE: FAKE!
Where do you go with the argument after that? One can always prove oneself "right" if one ignores or dismisses any evidence to the contrary.
It's confirmation bias writ large.
-
This is where it's impossible to win the argument
FE: I don't believe 'x'. Show me photographic proof.
RE: OK, here.
FE: FAKE!
Where do you go with the argument after that? One can always prove oneself "right" if one ignores or dismisses any evidence to the contrary.
It's confirmation bias writ large.
Or two more things. If you have an ex-spouse, you know that the other person probably knows you are right but winning the fight is more important to get those "marriage points" so they pout and end conversation on that matter and then fight a new one hoping to gain face.
Or the other person knows full well that they are full of bull plop and they like to belong to a unique club. They come up with stuff to argue about as a game. Well actually the ex-spouse might say something they know will trigger a great reaction in the other just for the sport of it all.
-
Or two more things. If you have an ex-spouse, you know that the other person probably knows you are right but winning the fight is more important to get those "marriage points" so they pout and end conversation on that matter and then fight a new one hoping to gain face.
Or the other person knows full well that they are full of bull plop and they like to belong to a unique club. They come up with stuff to argue about as a game. Well actually the ex-spouse might say something they know will trigger a great reaction in the other just for the sport of it all.
Where are you going with this? Do you mean that flat-earthers don't believe any photographs and videos evidence just "for the sport of it"?
I mean, he is right. People ask for photographs proofs and when they get one they just say that it's fake. How do you want us to prove you anything?
At this point, the only thing we can tell FEs is :
- Go there https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=telescope
- Order a good one
- Travel around the world with it
- Observe the stars at night (at day for the sun :p) and the ISS when it gets near your location (http://iss.astroviewer.net/)
- Make your own conclusion
Because right now, FEs are literally believing... text. Where are FEs' actual observations?
-
This is where it's impossible to win the argument
FE: I don't believe 'x'. Show me photographic proof.
RE: OK, here.
FE: FAKE!
Where do you go with the argument after that? One can always prove oneself "right" if one ignores or dismisses any evidence to the contrary.
It's confirmation bias writ large.
"The Earth is flat, therefore any evidence to the contrary must be fake.
There's no real evidence of a curve, therefore the Earth must be flat."
It's truly the "We know the Bible is true because it is God-breathed, we know the Bible is God-breathed because it says so in 2 Timothy," of our time.
-
"The Earth is flat, therefore any evidence to the contrary must be fake.
There's no real evidence of a curve, therefore the Earth must be flat."
It's truly the "We know the Bible is true because it is God-breathed, we know the Bible is God-breathed because it says so in 2 Timothy," of our time.
I actually do believe the Bible is true, I just don’t believe it should be read like a science book or that it teaches a flat earth
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/
If evidence (and there is plenty) of a round earth contradicts your understanding of Scripture then rather than shouting “FAKE!” at all of it with now basis, how about re-examining your understanding of Scripture? Scripture may be inspired, your understanding of it is not and should be open to change as you learn more.
-
"The Earth is flat, therefore any evidence to the contrary must be fake.
There's no real evidence of a curve, therefore the Earth must be flat."
It's truly the "We know the Bible is true because it is God-breathed, we know the Bible is God-breathed because it says so in 2 Timothy," of our time.
I actually do believe the Bible is true, I just don’t believe it should be read like a science book or that it teaches a flat earth
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/
If evidence (and there is plenty) of a round earth contradicts your understanding of Scripture then rather than shouting “FAKE!” at all of it with now basis, how about re-examining your understanding of Scripture? Scripture may be inspired, your understanding of it is not and should be open to change as you learn more.
I do as well, but that's the classic example of begging the question and circular reasoning. Plus, if your sole reason for believing in the Bible is a huge logical fallacy like that, I can't imagine your faith is very strong.
-
You lost me. What is the logical fallacy?
-
You lost me. What is the logical fallacy?
These two, which are pretty closely related and I can never remember the difference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Basically any argument that's set up as
If P then Q
If Q then P
Therefore P and Q
-
Where are you going with this? Do you mean that flat-earthers don't believe any photographs and videos evidence just "for the sport of it"?
I mean, he is right. People ask for photographs proofs and when they get one they just say that it's fake. How do you want us to prove you anything?
At this point, the only thing we can tell FEs is :
- Go there https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=telescope
- Order a good one
- Travel around the world with it
- Observe the stars at night (at day for the sun :p) and the ISS when it gets near your location (http://iss.astroviewer.net/)
- Make your own conclusion
Because right now, FEs are literally believing... text. Where are FEs' actual observations?
Where I am going is that there must be FEers with enough experience to realize that the earth is round. They are not believing anything for sport they are arguing for sport. They know the truth, but they want to have fun belonging to a society. There would be others with less experience who believe the earth is flat simply because they refuse to believe there might be a New Zealand (if there is a New Zealand why is there no original Zealand?). Just like people who claim there is now a New Mexico. I have met older people who had never met anyone who believes in evolution. These people could also easily believe in a flat earth. Here certain FEers argue minute details for the sake of arguing and then stop when enough evidence is provided. I was asked to provide a reference when I said that corrections lines were put in when farms could not be simply straight line surveyed in the western US. I was asked why I believed that all parts of the world get equal day and night. All those things are simply tactics to argue not to prove anything.
-
You lost me. What is the logical fallacy?
These two, which are pretty closely related and I can never remember the difference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Basically any argument that's set up as
If P then Q
If Q then P
Therefore P and Q
Ok. I'm still not clear how you think I have committed that logical fallacy though.
My argument is simply this. If I think that
1) The Bible is inspired and therefore correct and
2) My understanding of scripture is that it teaches the earth is flat (note the emphasis) and
3) Increasing amounts of evidence shows that the earth is not flat
Then there are two possibilities.
1) All the evidence for a round earth is faked or wrong - as more and more evidence mounts up this becomes a less and less logical stance.
2) My understanding of scripture is wrong. Note, again, understanding. Not that scripture itself is wrong, more my understanding of it.
The people in the FE community who use the Bible (use it incorrectly, in my opinion) to back up their beliefs never seem to consider option 2. The believe that God's word says the earth is flat so the earth is flat, and that is the end of the matter. Why not consider that your understanding of scripture is wrong? Do you really think you understand it perfectly and that the most important message in the Bible is the shape of the earth? Even the Catholics, who I generally think believe some pretty weird, non-Biblical stuff, admitted that they got it wrong when they put Galileo under house arrest for suggesting that the earth goes round the sun.
-
You lost me. What is the logical fallacy?
These two, which are pretty closely related and I can never remember the difference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Basically any argument that's set up as
If P then Q
If Q then P
Therefore P and Q
Ok. I'm still not clear how you think I have committed that logical fallacy though.
My argument is simply this. If I think that
1) The Bible is inspired and therefore correct and
2) My understanding of scripture is that it teaches the earth is flat (note the emphasis) and
3) Increasing amounts of evidence shows that the earth is not flat
Then there are two possibilities.
1) All the evidence for a round earth is faked or wrong - as more and more evidence mounts up this becomes a less and less logical stance.
2) My understanding of scripture is wrong. Note, again, understanding. Not that scripture itself is wrong, more my understanding of it.
The people in the FE community who use the Bible (use it incorrectly, in my opinion) to back up their beliefs never seem to consider option 2. The believe that God's word says the earth is flat so the earth is flat, and that is the end of the matter. Why not consider that your understanding of scripture is wrong? Do you really think you understand it perfectly and that the most important message in the Bible is the shape of the earth? Even the Catholics, who I generally think believe some pretty weird, non-Biblical stuff, admitted that they got it wrong when they put Galileo under house arrest for suggesting that the earth goes round the sun.
Sorry, I think we crossed some wires here. I was largely agreeing with you. The bit that I was saying was an example of begging the question were my examples here in this post:
"The Earth is flat, therefore any evidence to the contrary must be fake.
There's no real evidence of a curve, therefore the Earth must be flat."
and
"We know the Bible is true because it is God-breathed, we know the Bible is God-breathed because it says so in 2 Timothy,"
I'm in total agreement with you that scripture isn't meant to be a source of scientific knowledge. My go-to example is Jesus saying "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." If a Biblical literallist saw that they'd think it meant all Governments are still secretly controlled by the Roman Empire and rule under Caesar's name. Instead I think it's pretty clear that Jesus was using the language of His followers to teach a moral lesson and the specifics beyond that aren't really useful. You can imagine it wouldn't have meant as much to His audience if He'd said "please pay your federal income taxes to the IRS in a timely manner." Therefore, similarly a story in which "God then stopped the Earth from spinning around the Sun, but also mitigated the effects of momentum and overheating this would cause," in Joshua 10 would have just been confusing the the 12th century BC Israelites that were first reading it.
-
Right. Yes. Wires crossed. Sorry! :D
-
satellites ... They travel west to east in giant wave formation. None go over the poles.
I found actually this website shows exactly that:
(https://preview.ibb.co/gLnrec/Untitled.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fnBHKc)
However it does mystify me somewhat as to how does it turn the corner? The forces must be enormous if I try to imagine (dangerous thing). I always recommend to stick to what can be observed. However I have never observed an object travel in such waves. I understand it can have great speed, but what makes this peculiar wave shape?
The site is what we discuss in another subject: https://www.thehumanitystar.com/ (https://www.thehumanitystar.com/). Sorry it's not about "iss", but I thought it similar thing
-
Because right now, FEs are literally believing... text. Where are FEs' actual observations?
Yes, it seems just like in Christianity there are so many nominal flat earthers. (I don't even capitalise their name). One of our principles is that an explanation must be seen or experienced for it to be real. But then they accuse others of rationalization etcetera when they themselves start talking about things they have never even seen either! I can't really accept them as true FE-ers, and I sometimes wonder where the real Flat Earthers are. Those that observe and experience, see the Flat Earth and believe it, but also accept the possibility that they might be mistaken. When someone else offers them to show an experience or a reality, to politely refuse should be allowed to be called 'choosing to be ignorant'.
You would almost say "will the real FE-ers now stand up". And there won't be many, very unfortunate :'( as I can observe it to be true.
they refuse to believe there might be a New Zealand (if there is a New Zealand why is there no original Zealand?).
A man I once met claimed he was from the original. I think a province he said. I don't know as I've never been shown.
-
satellites ... They travel west to east in giant wave formation. None go over the poles.
I found actually this website shows exactly that:
(https://preview.ibb.co/gLnrec/Untitled.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fnBHKc)
However it does mystify me somewhat as to how does it turn the corner? The forces must be enormous if I try to imagine (dangerous thing). I always recommend to stick to what can be observed. However I have never observed an object travel in such waves. I understand it can have great speed, but what makes this peculiar wave shape?
The site is what we discuss in another subject: https://www.thehumanitystar.com/ (https://www.thehumanitystar.com/). Sorry it's not about "iss", but I thought it similar thing
The wave shape on that map is the result of a polar orbit. It's not moving in such waves if you were to plot its course upon a globe map. I'm not sure what many of you FEer find hard to grasp about how a projection works. This is an oddly frequent question.
-
mercator map is a cylindrical projection of a sphere
circles around a globe map to waves on a cylinder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTlLmcrrU0A
and now you know
-
satellites ... They travel west to east in giant wave formation. None go over the poles.
I found actually this website shows exactly that:
(https://preview.ibb.co/gLnrec/Untitled.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fnBHKc)
However it does mystify me somewhat as to how does it turn the corner? The forces must be enormous if I try to imagine (dangerous thing). I always recommend to stick to what can be observed. However I have never observed an object travel in such waves. I understand it can have great speed, but what makes this peculiar wave shape?
The site is what we discuss in another subject: https://www.thehumanitystar.com/ (https://www.thehumanitystar.com/). Sorry it's not about "iss", but I thought it similar thing
The wave shape on that map is the result of a polar orbit. It's not moving in such waves if you were to plot its course upon a globe map. I'm not sure what many of you FEer find hard to grasp about how a projection works. This is an oddly frequent question.
If they are travelling in waves, Then they would require a force to change direction and since direction is always changing a constant force would be necessary. Any thrusters would be visible with the ISS. My next door neighbour is a friend of Tim Peake, they went to school together, served in the military together and are still good friends. If Tim had been paid off or threatened, he would know. I saw a photo he took, the Earth was round.
-
actually i think. This goes to all of you very special people. whats your wish kid? Howd it go when you went to macys to ask to give em your wish. You make a wish kid. If i were you. My wish would be to leap off the edge of the flat earth and end your pathetic life.
Can I make a wish?...really? then I wish I could understand what you just said.
ps theearthisntreal are you one of my gang.....who believes the earth isnt real?
-
how do you know that 'telescope' wasn't just a tube with pictures inside it?
-
they refuse to believe there might be a New Zealand (if there is a New Zealand why is there no original Zealand?).
A man I once met claimed he was from the original. I think a province he said. I don't know as I've never been shown.
Actually Treep, the old Zealand is a province in Norway. The fella you were talking to was probably just Norwegian.
Besides, your skepticism is a little intense. I think one can safely assume other people exist, or maybe I'm just a NASA created AI to spread the conspiracy. All this flesh would seem to suggest otherwise, but you can't trust my opinion apparently. ;)