841

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here

« on: May 22, 2017, 01:52:11 AM »

If a question isn't covered in the wiki it has a much better chance of being answered. That's why we so strongly encourage checking the wiki before asking the question. Often the proper approach leads to an interesting discussion which is what most of us are really interested in.

I read the wiki and it did not answer the question of "why would anyone cover up the fact that the earth is flat and who gains".   If it other than Nasa, I missed it.  Please be so kind as to provide a quote. 

842

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ironic

« on: May 22, 2017, 01:46:22 AM »

It's ironic to me that anyone would try to cover up a flat earth.   If the earth was flat, under a dome, with the sun, moon and all the stars under that as well, it would be infinitely more interesting than the accepted reality.  Scientists would be flocking to study the dome, find out what it's made of, find out what's beyond the ice wall, try to reach the moon etc.   Scientists have died in the cause of learning for centuries.  People were killed for cutting up bodies and IIRC also killed for suggesting the earth was round.  Madame Curie died from radiation.

You don't know what the word ironic means, do you? You sure seem to know what a non-sequitur is, though. Well, maybe you don't, but you sure continue to post them.

My statement was quite logical.   How about instead of insults you engage in debate?

843

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the FE model is correct, then how can explain extra-terrestrial phenomenon?

« on: May 18, 2017, 07:14:31 PM »

The simple answer is that extraterrestrial life just doesn't exist, and fortunately there is no scientific evidence to counter that answer, so case closed.

That's not case closed, though. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's a lot of universe to explore still.

Given the speed information can travel, and our unique window we have to look through, it's a bit more challenging than finding the proverbial needle in the haystack, but it seems worthwhile to me to keep looking.

Do I think flying saucers frequent Earth though? I find that pretty unlikely.

I might as well ask if the world is round why is there Ice Wall? LOL

Cool, where is the evidence?  Your anecdote about the Ice Wall is fantastic, however, there is no empirical evidence supporting this claim (unless you have some you would like to share).


Becuase there is not one If you are going to present  as fact you should back it up with evidnece.

844

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?

« on: May 18, 2017, 07:08:34 PM »

First off, I presented facts about airliners and private jets that you conveniently ignored. 

Given that private jets are irrelevant to your claim about the FAQ, there wasn't anything to discuss beyond your dishonest attempt to claim the FAQ stated something that it clearly does not.

I was being quite honest as the FAQ states. "It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. "   That is either dishonest or ignorant?  It can only be one of those.  Which is it?

845

Flat Earth Theory / Ironic

« on: May 18, 2017, 07:00:23 PM »

It's ironic to me that anyone would try to cover up a flat earth.   If the earth was flat, under a dome, with the sun, moon and all the stars under that as well, it would be infinitely more interesting than the accepted reality.  Scientists would be flocking to study the dome, find out what it's made of, find out what's beyond the ice wall, try to reach the moon etc.   Scientists have died in the cause of learning for centuries.  People were killed for cutting up bodies and IIRC also killed for suggesting the earth was round.  Madame Curie died from radiation.

846

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?

« on: May 18, 2017, 06:51:12 PM »

First off, I presented facts about airliners and private jets that you conveniently ignored. 

Given that private jets are irrelevant to your claim about the FAQ, there wasn't anything to discuss beyond your dishonest attempt to claim the FAQ stated something that it clearly does not.

This is on topic because the size of the crowd keeping the secret would be huge and getting bigger every day.  Everyone that ever flew from Sydney to South Africa would know if they own a watch or looked out the window.

Cool, where is the evidence? Also, the fuselage is curved and the windows have some curvature. Keep that in mind when you decide to start providing evidence for your claims (assuming you actually attempt to).

Then why does the horizon look flat at normal cruising altitudes?

847

Flat Earth Community / Re: FE as a cultural phenomenon.

« on: May 18, 2017, 06:38:25 PM »

I don't think it's going to affect the real, working world a bit.

It already has (and you know it, too!), so you can throw that guess out of the window

How has it affected the real working world?  Planes still fly great circle routes, ships don't sail off the edge, people still study astrophysics, satellites still relay calls and show weather.

848

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?

« on: May 18, 2017, 06:12:10 PM »

There are thousands of witnesses to the curvature of the earth on the concord and modern small jets.

Citation needed...

Are you really a moderator?  I ask because you seem like more of a troll?

Seeing as how you are the one making unfounded claims and now deflecting, it would seem you are actually the troll.

If you have no evidence to support your claims then just say so and move on. If you aren't going to stay on topic then refrain from posting. If you want to actually discuss the topic, then maybe support your claims.

First off, I presented facts about airliners and private jets that you conveniently ignored.   This is on topic because the size of the crowd keeping the secret would be huge and getting bigger every day.  Everyone that ever flew from Sydney to South Africa would know if they own a watch or looked out the window.

Second, it is a widely accepted fact that people flying Concord saw the curvature.  A simple google search would let you know that.  Are we to assume every passenger of Concorde is part of the coverup? 

https://www.google.com/search?q=view+from+concorde+window&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBn9Cbg_rTAhUC1mMKHbhjBCkQ_AUIBigB&biw=1920&bih=950

Since you are a mod here, will you answer the question of the OP or a modified version of it?  Your best guess, not an exact number, how big is the number of people hiding the flat earth from all of us?     Furthermore, off topic to some extent but why are they hiding it, who stands to gain?

849

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here

« on: May 18, 2017, 05:47:27 PM »

1. Because the simplest of questions are answered in the wiki.
2. It is not necessarily the case that the perpetrators of the Conspiracy are aware of the Earth's true shape.
3. My opinion is that what was important wasn't the reality of the situation so much as public perception. Clearly both sides were putting on a show in a crazy game of chicken; who would actually have the balls to say that we actually accomplished the seemingly impossible feat of putting a man on the moon first?

1.  The simplest questions is "why?".  I have yet to see a reason behind millions of people hiding this knowledge and to what gain?  I do not see that in the Wiki or the FAQ
2.  The southern hemisphere long haul argument is a perfect example of how huge the conspiracy would have to be.  Every pilot flying from Sydney to the cape of Africa or South America would know right then that the globe was wrong.
3.  The earth was accepted to be a globe long before anyone tried to shoot a rock into space.  Why the deception?

These are serious points and I would hope for serious answers. Not the standard "look at the wiki".

Why hide it and who gains from this?

850

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?

« on: May 18, 2017, 02:23:04 AM »

There are thousands of witnesses to the curvature of the earth on the concord and modern small jets.

Citation needed...

Are you really a moderator?  I ask because you seem like more of a troll?

851

Flat Earth Theory / New here

« on: May 17, 2017, 11:43:47 PM »

I have a few serious questions.

1.  I have read a quite a few threads and it seems no one will answer even the simplest of questions.  Why? 
2.  What is the reason for hiding the flat earth?  Who profits from hiding such a simple fact and to what end?
3. The Wiki says that NASA is not running a real space program... "The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to)"  Since the Russians were first, they would have known before we did that space travel is not possible and they would have been the ones that we were trying to bluff.   Please explain this logic bust? 

Yes, I have searched and not found any answers.  All I saw were links to other threads that don't provide any answers.

852

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?

« on: May 17, 2017, 11:30:36 PM »

Also, the FAQ says planes are not allowed to fly over 40,000 ft.  Pure bunk.  A Cessna Citation X flys at 51,000 and the same for a Gulfstream g650.  The concord flew at 60,000 and passengers reported seeing the curvature.

The FAQ actually says:
" It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high."

Neither the Cessna, nor the Gulfstream you cited are commercial aircraft. Your anecdote about the Concorde is fantastic, however there is no empirical evidence supporting this claim (unless you have some you would like to share).

Again, bunk, most domestic small jets in service in the US are commercial aircraft operated under FAA part 135.  They are allowed to fly as high as they are certified for.

Airliner altitude is not limited by regulation but by certification. Most current airliners certify at 42,000.  It is a cost issue. It's much more expensive to build aircraft that will certify for greater altitude and there is no gain when using a standard fan jet and wing design.  The 787 only gained 1000 feet with its new wing design.

There are thousands of witnesses to the curvature of the earth on the concord and modern small jets.  Are they all duped?

853

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'm looking for a volunteer, a true flat earth believer.

« on: May 17, 2017, 10:56:04 PM »

Hi, everybody, I'm French and I am looking for a volunteer.
He needs to be a true believer, and if possible, has a youtube channel or a blog.
I want to start a Kickstarter campaign to gather money to send him into the stratosphere with a Mig29 or a ballon if we reach a higher goal.
Everything will be on my charge. I just need him for a couple days and for some interviews.
I want to make a documentary about that.
All the unspent money would be given to an association that promotes education and knowledge.
Please, let me know if you're interested.
Thank you.
Clem

You are over thinking this.   All you need to do is charter a Cessna Citation X that goes to 51,000 feet.  Book it for 2 hours.   It holds 8 people so you and 7 others could go.  Nice big windows to see the obvoius as well as video the results.  This could be done for under 10,000.


https://www.google.com/search?q=citation+x+charter+rates&oq=citaion+x+charter+r&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.7071j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

854

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?

« on: May 17, 2017, 09:44:30 PM »

Snipers taking into account the Coriolis effect of the earth for long range shots: fake.

Y'know, the longer you list these, the longer I think that you haven't spoken to many people here.

My best friend is a multi-time world record holder and world champion in 1,000-yard shooting.  The Coriolis effect is quite real and I have seen it in action.

Also, the FAQ says planes are not allowed to fly over 40,000 ft.  Pure bunk.  A Cessna Citation X flys at 51,000 and the same for a Gulfstream g650.  The concord flew at 60,000 and passengers reported seeing the curvature. 

855

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question from a physicist

« on: May 17, 2017, 06:54:45 PM »

Hello everyone. 

I have a question for you all.  I've been through the FAQ and, although the concept of gravity is discussed, I couldn't see any reference to this particular point.

Imagine that you're travelling around with an accurate accelerometer (a device which measures acceleration).  At various places you stop and take a measurement, and after a while start to notice that these measurements differ from each other by a small amount.  This shows that the strength of gravity is different at different places on the planet. 

In classical physics this is well documented and can be explained by a number of different phenomena.  For example, according to Newton's law of gravitation [F=G(Mm)/r^2] if you are at the top of a mountain, gravity should be slightly weaker than if you were at sea level.  Also, the non-uniform mass density of the planet can account for some considerable variation, even if measurements are taken at the same altitude.  In fact, the measurement you take can vary by as much as 0.7% from place to place.

Now, as I understand it (and do please correct me if I've got the wrong idea) you suggest that the flat Earth is being accelerated upwards at a constant 9.8m/s^2.  Surely, if that were the case, the acceleration measured at any point on the planet would be exactly the same.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.  Please note, I'm not here as a troll, I just find the whole topic fascinating.

Thanks!

F

Hello.

Firstly, the earth is stationary and doesn't move to anywhere. That knowledge is "old theory" and debunked several times, also by ourselves.

Most part believers accept the "gravity effect" as caused by atmospheric stringency. You may think it as atmospheric pressure. They are not same by phsically but are about same as effective.

In nature, everything pushes others, including atmospher. So when you are on a mountain, there is less atmospher upper side of you and so, it causes less force to down you. So the gravity is less.

In ground level, the atmospher on your upper side is more than the mountain level, so the gravity effect increases. Thats all.

You can explain every type of gravity effects by changing the atmospheric weight/or hight which effect to the object.

PS: I'm an engineer from 20 years.

Then why does an object not float in a vacuum?  Surely you took a few physics courses in your engineering curriculum?

856

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain airline travel in southern hemisphere?

« on: May 17, 2017, 06:40:22 PM »

Experiment: Find non-stop flights between cities in the Northern Hemisphere that go primarily West-East until you circle the entire earth.  Now do the same for non-stop flights in the Southern Hemisphere.  You will find that the flight times are basically the same.  This means that distance traveled is roughly the same since the airplanes used all have similar cruising and maximum speeds.  Please explain how the earth can be flat and yet it takes the same amount of time to travel the Northern Hemisphere as the Southern Hemisphere.

My Results:

Northern Hemisphere Route
Boston, USA to Frankfurt, Germany: 6 hours 55 minutes
Frankfurt, Germany to Beijing, China: 9 hours 10 minutes
Beijing, China to San Francisco, USA: 11 hours 35 minutes
San Francisco, USA to Boston, USA: 5 hours 25 minutes
Total Time: 33 hours 5 minutes

Southern Hemisphere Route
San Paulo, Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa: 8 hours 25 minutes
Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia: 11 hours 45 minutes
Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile: 12 hours 40 minutes
Santiago, Chile to San Paulo, Brazil: 3 hours 45 minutes
Total Time: 36 hours 35 minutes

Picture of flight paths on flat earth: http://imgur.com/gutJ6vE

Funny, I found this forum after calculating the same problem after a random Youtube video.   I thought Flat Earth was a joke until I googled it.   My rough calculations said a plane from Sydney to Johanasberg would have to fly around Mach 1.6 to make the trip in the time Quantas does it.  Plus flying over India and China.