The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: FLTERTHISFAKE on June 29, 2017, 05:38:00 AM
-
My only question is, why? Although i've never come face-to-face with a Flat-Earther, I know they're incredibly stubborn. Unable to be open to new ideas. I've seen others try to reason with them, but in the end fail. Today I am not here to argue with any FEs, but to ask a question, why? Why do you think that the Earth is flat? No society nor government has any reason to lie about the shape of a planet. There is literally no reason whatsoever to lie about the SHAPE OF A PLANET. I know that no amount of stone cold facts I state will ever change any minds, so i'll leave it at that.
-
Although i've never come face-to-face with a Flat-Earther, I know they're incredibly stubborn. Unable to be open to new ideas.
That's an interesting position. "I've never encountered <x>, but I definitely know stuff about <x>". Perhaps you should consider opening yourself up to new ideas?
No society nor government has any reason to lie about the shape of a planet. There is literally no reason whatsoever to lie about the SHAPE OF A PLANET.
One does not need to lie in order to spread false information.
I know that no amount of stone cold facts I state will ever change any minds, so i'll leave it at that.
You seem to be projecting, friend.
-
Although i've never come face-to-face with a Flat-Earther, I know they're incredibly stubborn. Unable to be open to new ideas.
That's an interesting position. "I've never encountered <x>, but I definitely know stuff about <x>". Perhaps you should consider opening yourself up to new ideas?
No society nor government has any reason to lie about the shape of a planet. There is literally no reason whatsoever to lie about the SHAPE OF A PLANET.
One does not need to lie in order to spread false information.
I know that no amount of stone cold facts I state will ever change any minds, so i'll leave it at that.
You seem to be projecting, friend.
As usual, you completely dodge the question.
You don't have stone cold facts that even remotely suggest the earth is flat. This is why you don't state them. It would be a lie to claim otherwise.
-
My only question is, why? Although i've never come face-to-face with a Flat-Earther, I know they're incredibly stubborn. Unable to be open to new ideas. I've seen others try to reason with them, but in the end fail. Today I am not here to argue with any FEs, but to ask a question, why? Why do you think that the Earth is flat? No society nor government has any reason to lie about the shape of a planet. There is literally no reason whatsoever to lie about the SHAPE OF A PLANET. I know that no amount of stone cold facts I state will ever change any minds, so i'll leave it at that.
I agree, the idea that every country with a space program (United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, South and North Korea, Iran, Canada, ect...) are all spending trillions of dollars to fool everyone into thinking the earth is round is just crazy. There is no benefit, what do they gain from it? Or are they just doing it so they can have a good laugh?
-
My only question is, why? Although i've never come face-to-face with a Flat-Earther, I know they're incredibly stubborn. Unable to be open to new ideas. I've seen others try to reason with them, but in the end fail. Today I am not here to argue with any FEs, but to ask a question, why? Why do you think that the Earth is flat? No society nor government has any reason to lie about the shape of a planet. There is literally no reason whatsoever to lie about the SHAPE OF A PLANET. I know that no amount of stone cold facts I state will ever change any minds, so i'll leave it at that.
I agree, the idea that every country with a space program (United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, South and North Korea, Iran, Canada, ect...) are all spending trillions of dollars to fool everyone into thinking the earth is round is just crazy. There is no benefit, what do they gain from it? Or are they just doing it so they can have a good laugh?
The one and only reason I've heard is that these governments (or the United Nations, more broadly) believe that there are other livable areas out beyond the great ice wall - and that they want to exploit these areas for their own gain.
I don't claim that all FE'ers believe this - I'm sure they don't - but it's one quasi-plausible explanation that I've heard stated on these forums.
To my mind, this fails. People who navigated by the stars over long distances have been around since at LEAST the 1500's - and they would have had to have known that the Earth was flat - if indeed it is. Since all of their navigational instruments, books, charts and tables claim that the Earth is round, the conspiracy to hide the true nature of the Earth would have to be at least as old as that - and carried through multiple government agencies and commercial companies for at least 500 years without a single mistake, deathbed confession, or other clue that they were hiding this. People such as pirates would have to have been "in" on it - and what their motives might be is anyone's guess!
The failure to explain WHY this gigantic conspiracy could have been possible over such an incredibly prolonged and world-wide extent simply boggles the mind.
Even today - it doesn't suffice to simply hide information and fake pictures - these governments must somehow build, fund, crew, provision that fleet of ships, planes and drones that prevent us civilians from exploring deep into the Antarctic. Hiding that cost - pulling the shipyards, aircraft factories, fuel-providers into the conspiracy - preventing the crews from blabbing to the media - keeping the secret so well hidden that WikiLeaks and a host of others never found it...
This conspiracy would be so vast that there would be more people involved in keeping it than there are people that it's being kept from!
And still no credible motive.
-
The motive is explained in the Wiki.
-
The motive is explained in the Wiki.
Which is frankly somewhat ridiculous to believe by your own standards at this point. Which is more plausible? Every nation on Earth with a space program (of note are the three with manned missions into space, NASA, RFSA, and CNSA, along with 70 that have launched satellites into orbit, 10 of which used their own rockets, and 15 countries have sent people into space with assistance) are lying about venturing into space. Repeatedly. During and after the height of the Cold War. Through to the present day with now private companies claiming to have done so. Every single one is lying, for an unknown purpose.
Alternatively new discoveries and advancements were made to make what was once deemed impossible, now possible.
Of note on the second point, we have had this happen in multiple other areas of science and technology. The phone you carry in your pocket is a testament to those advances. As are the buildings and vehicles we see about us every single day.
FET would have you believe that NASA is lying to preserve the idea of our militaristic superiority. What about Russia? China? SpaceX? That excuse is holding less and less water.
-
Alternatively new discoveries and advancements were made to make what was once deemed impossible, now possible.
"Doing the impossible" sounds like the least likely explanation if you ask me.
-
Alternatively new discoveries and advancements were made to make what was once deemed impossible, now possible.
"Doing the impossible" sounds like the least likely explanation if you ask me.
So airplanes don't exist? Nuclear power plants don't exist? That small device in your pocket doesn't have the processing power it claims to? All of those things were once deemed impossible, all now happen on a regular and daily basis. The impossible becoming the possible is practically a motto for applied sciences and tech for the past few decades. But sure, it happening similarly in this one area, is less likely than thousands of people, over a span of over 4 decades, from 15+ different countries, all lying. To serve what end? That is the million dollar question now then.
-
Alternatively new discoveries and advancements were made to make what was once deemed impossible, now possible.
"Doing the impossible" sounds like the least likely explanation if you ask me.
So airplanes don't exist? Nuclear power plants don't exist? That small device in your pocket doesn't have the processing power it claims to? All of those things were once deemed impossible, all now happen on a regular and daily basis. The impossible becoming the possible is practically a motto for applied sciences and tech for the past few decades. But sure, it happening similarly in this one area, is less likely than thousands of people, over a span of over 4 decades, from 15+ different countries, all lying. To serve what end? That is the million dollar question now then.
The existence of airplanes and smart phones are an empirical truth. Rockets capable of going into orbit are classified military-controlled technologies and do not meet the standard of empirical truth.
-
Alternatively new discoveries and advancements were made to make what was once deemed impossible, now possible.
"Doing the impossible" sounds like the least likely explanation if you ask me.
So airplanes don't exist? Nuclear power plants don't exist? That small device in your pocket doesn't have the processing power it claims to? All of those things were once deemed impossible, all now happen on a regular and daily basis. The impossible becoming the possible is practically a motto for applied sciences and tech for the past few decades. But sure, it happening similarly in this one area, is less likely than thousands of people, over a span of over 4 decades, from 15+ different countries, all lying. To serve what end? That is the million dollar question now then.
The existence of airplanes and smart phones are an empirical truth. Rockets capable of going into orbit are classified military-controlled technologies and do not meet the standard of empirical truth.
This is false. Space X is not a classified military operation. Multiple privet companies have launched independent satellites. Space X has launched multiple space flights and virgin galactic is not so far behind.
-
Alternatively new discoveries and advancements were made to make what was once deemed impossible, now possible.
"Doing the impossible" sounds like the least likely explanation if you ask me.
So airplanes don't exist? Nuclear power plants don't exist? That small device in your pocket doesn't have the processing power it claims to? All of those things were once deemed impossible, all now happen on a regular and daily basis. The impossible becoming the possible is practically a motto for applied sciences and tech for the past few decades. But sure, it happening similarly in this one area, is less likely than thousands of people, over a span of over 4 decades, from 15+ different countries, all lying. To serve what end? That is the million dollar question now then.
The existence of airplanes and smart phones are an empirical truth. Rockets capable of going into orbit are classified military-controlled technologies and do not meet the standard of empirical truth.
This is false. Space X is not a classified military operation. Multiple privet companies have launched independent satellites. Space X has launched multiple space flights and virgin galactic is not so far behind.
Orbital rocket technologies are highly controlled. SpaceX is not independent. It's a government contractor and its employees are under direct government supervision and control for permission to develop/access these technologies. Do you really think the military would let technology which can easily be used as the vehicle for an ICBM be available as public knowledge?
-
You want stone cold facts?
- During lunar eclipses (which occur2-5 times a year visible from all over the hemisphere) the Earth shadow cast on Moon is round. What shape casts round shadow in all angles? Right - a sphere
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0808/LEumbralshadow_ayiomamitis.jpg)
- Sinking beyond horizon ship. Don't tell me your perspective bullshit. Even no a single vide on YT proving this nonsens, but tens videos prove the opposite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8m1u2ORXmE&t=157s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GDhVoWSrMg
Look at this photo: and follow the line of the turbines on left. No bending light, no nothing. Just the curvature makes the farthest "touch" water
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rYSxRoFcXxmryu481P6sNrnO8RbN0F-OzcztymAjCQPo_63txcsk45bFBdPoWMyG4Hc1G8upYBIBkwj9Au_QONsMbk-pQ0obPBUfa9oV9eg6Y9O-GPd8wCDaFS0JLEpzPT6Cc59N618grKrnv59I3PK5FJQyumZi9e_OyC079huJZM7gnvNW6dqZeg7RWVJAUBTEoWJsbB7GfbToabXBxtpDwhyTvV3QMQMThksmTD4NclwXyra6ox8afo768Oi_GpTGGAhVpPSPmbKMVO2UdjFyNsgPGSViyI5iyYbdOzxDuf-WDOip3UwSBFTC8DhBx6wy8DH9IUyEVqP8ytIQGSIHfKzJdxUawg7gqadEldJdi47Ub2xDJ6k_oiJ8zMGRmw8hF2bhkWpMCnHADfVBc7dAbahWDScyE_Rj37E3Ex0zQJaICsuFEYm7dvI37XLjpt7DcGe44YdzJZljdTz9OBZfeejLnOsDRO18KOyLj8QRydAs_jLQnrzQ50NMlMBw7gpz7t4D9kXpEs4IaJJQOE8siYUE8CRp4t3MdRyg06zbmapYX6ibKUm_0FbXllOudFfoVcyDQpZHbN4249Q70YdKOLxFpCG_qIEi6u3N_IHHboz-xLov=w534-h632-no)
- Seismic waves create P-wave shadow zones during earthquakes which are symmetric and perfectly fits spherical earth, but not any other shape.
(http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/graphics/diagrams/Earth/pand%20s%20shadow.png)
- Stars moving. How could you explain different directions of stars spinning in northern and southern hemispheres?
(http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-West-1200x800-cp8.jpg)
- Moon in southern hemisphere is upside-down. How can it be on a flat earth?
(http://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg?fb)
These are just what popped into my mind. If you need more, I'll write you a bunch of others as well. And there is no relying on NASA images. Simply testable by anyone.
All planets are spherical and somehow Earth is magically flat? WTF?
-
Come on, our explanations for those things are easily found in the literature and Wiki.
- During lunar eclipses (which occur2-5 times a year visible from all over the hemisphere) the Earth shadow cast on Moon is round. What shape casts round shadow in all angles? Right - a sphere
This is an ancient greek proof which assumes that the sphere is the earth rather than any other celestial body which orbits the sun.
- Sinking beyond horizon ship. Don't tell me your perspective bullshit. Even no a single vide on YT proving this nonsens, but tens videos prove the opposite.
Look at this photo: and follow the line of the turbines on left. No bending light, no nothing. Just the curvature makes the farthest "touch" water
Look up the chapter "Perspective at Sea" in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
- Seismic waves create P-wave shadow zones during earthquakes which are symmetric and perfectly fits spherical earth, but not any other shape
http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/graphics/diagrams/Earth/pand%20s%20shadow.png
As we see in your diagram, under the Round Earth model the seismic waves need to mysteriously curve as they travel through the earth to make any sense. The assumption that they are making straight line reflections in a plane is a more plausible explanation.
- Stars moving. How could you explain different directions of stars spinning in northern and southern hemispheres?
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
- Moon in southern hemisphere is upside-down. How can it be on a flat earth?
This is explained in the Wiki. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
All planets are spherical and somehow Earth is magically flat? WTF?
The earth is not a planet. The earth is a plane which bisects the universe and, therefore, fundamentally different.
-
Come on, our explanations for those things are easily found in the literature and Wiki.
And they do not withstand much scrutiny either.
- During lunar eclipses (which occur2-5 times a year visible from all over the hemisphere) the Earth shadow cast on Moon is round. What shape casts round shadow in all angles? Right - a sphere
This is an ancient greek proof which assumes that the sphere is the earth rather than any other celestial body which orbits the sun.[/quote]
Yes, one of the weaker proofs the Earth is spherical
Look up the chapter "Perspective at Sea" in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
It is a terrible explanation that has been refuted multiple times.
- Seismic waves create P-wave shadow zones during earthquakes which are symmetric and perfectly fits spherical earth, but not any other shape
http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/graphics/diagrams/Earth/pand%20s%20shadow.png
As we see in your diagram, under the Round Earth model the seismic waves need to mysteriously curve as they travel through the earth to make any sense. The assumption that they are making straight line reflections in a plane is a more plausible explanation.[/quote]
Perhaps the diagram is not 100% accurate of the vectors these waves take? Or perhaps, and this is a bit of a longshot, you don't know enough about seismology?
- Stars moving. How could you explain different directions of stars spinning in northern and southern hemispheres?
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.[/quote]
Which do not explain the movement of stars to the level of detail that a globe Earth does.
- Moon in southern hemisphere is upside-down. How can it be on a flat earth?
This is explained in the Wiki. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
Where are the pictures of the moon inverting along the other axes then?
All planets are spherical and somehow Earth is magically flat? WTF?
The earth is not a planet. The earth is a plane which bisects the universe and, therefore, fundamentally different.
Another bad RE argument.
-
Look I'm not a newbie in all this Flat Earth stuff. I'm new on this forum. So I read all the Wiki. Are you real about that? Let's see.
>> proof which assumes that the sphere is the earth rather than any other celestial body which orbits the sun.
Where is the that another body? Why it never was observed? Do you have an exact formula to calculate next Lunar Eclipse?
>> Look up the chapter "Perspective at Sea" in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
As I stated above - it's BS. There is no evidence to that nor logic. Can you provide any proof of that? Even a single video that shows that damn "Flatty Perspective"? Unless you don't prove your words they doesn't make any sense.
>> As we see in your diagram, under the Round Earth model the seisemic waves need to mysteriously "curve" as they travel through the earth to make any sense. The assumption that they are making straight line reflections in a plane is a more plausible explanation.
They don't need to "misteriously curve". It is a fact. When an earthquake happens this is what all seismologists see in their detectors all over the globe. It doesn't matter where exactly the earthquake takes place. The picture of these zones is always on the opposite side of the globe as the globe is symmetric. Go ahead and emulate this on a flat earth.
>> There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Golbe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
Can you please give me a direct link? I'll read and post back my thoughts. But I'm not expecting very much from that. Everything I read about FET is a complete nonsense. Sorry.
>> This is explained in the Wiki. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
>> Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the
>> Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or
>> away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
No no! It's a wrong analogy! The Moon is a sphere right? Or it is flat? Because if it was flat it would exhibit that "flip-flop" effect you are talking about. But then there are much stronger counterarguments for the flat Moon. Because we see it with naked eye and it exhibits curvature. If the Moon is not flat it will never behave like you describe. This doesn't explain upside-down Moon in sutern hemisphere.
>> The earth is not a planet. The earth is a plane which bisects the universe, and therefore fundamentally different.
Oh I forgot about this postulate of your religion. Sorry for that. Let be it not planet. Amen.
-
>> There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Golbe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
Can you please give me a direct link? I'll read and post back my thoughts. But I'm not expecting very much from that. Everything I read about FET is a complete nonsense. Sorry.
http://library.tfes.org/library/Sea-Earth%20Globe.pdf Here's the document he's referring to. Starts on PDF page 15, book page 31. The presented movement doesn't fit the standard FE model, and it relies upon either the ability for magnetic fields to shift without being noticed, or the sun to magically change where it's circling through the intervention of an intelligent, powerful being.
-
Or the sun to magically change where it's circling through the intervention of an intelligent, powerful being.
I need to read this book :)
-
>> There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Golbe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
Can you please give me a direct link? I'll read and post back my thoughts. But I'm not expecting very much from that. Everything I read about FET is a complete nonsense. Sorry.
http://library.tfes.org/library/Sea-Earth%20Globe.pdf Here's the document he's referring to. Starts on PDF page 15, book page 31. The presented movement doesn't fit the standard FE model, and it relies upon either the ability for magnetic fields to shift without being noticed, or the sun to magically change where it's circling through the intervention of an intelligent, powerful being.
Thanks. I read it. And, well...
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Hs9-lEavkUym3fwmbWcSLLWRPCBQ2L05T8YVFsgXqoMIYPMVog78UPvFONh_7oXxIjWsHqUlchpdXzub7gvNhEPVxT35eEcexzaqLpto0Ebzcif2guJTGPat0ZQywajBkGZrD1CdqcNG1oCIrli3mhpGrIPOCu2--5bgLh19r5EwGPFJpUooyiGiSdpqN-f7z8lg8m37s2b0KSSmDfm8MtdQ4V-qaUz-6EPk3Jy83Hkf2IPoHoFBwPG_kjuJmfYZvA0Ih4LRq6WmAvo4tLFnqIqiVSMy_glqAjaULg2p9LRjFPqiuvS73o4eA6873IudYMrDLen5W-4ZYkvbNV6jt5j2iaP9h7WZKkNaWJm9tqCTwgQX-cafC7wPfBa5fpZH_ohUyGWkwb4mtMam2XPUVpy7EGQP59oH2WljqaAgZqLNZqxWwcqxXXz4U2Qe4A0Pf-LMC2eOd0r9KY2l8OPZlHIUlIq_mM5GTtP1GgIxBwuBXINb-doQjNUISGDHuYu2SFn1GIqx706bFY2xDYDwkSMp4r87j_nSFstW3EgZo93SuCP_0PQCMrkPYGFN4dEDqoPMUAhDt2uinBQesFASDbTta-Xaig3jn1CqDwx-0FMlKq2m9cqVJBWn=w261-h520-no)
It's just a bunch of crap. That author mentions bible as source for what? A mad scientific theory of a dual poles? He hypothesizes about what stars are without understanding a shit about how distances are measured, how spectrum is measured, what is the proper way to investigate things. I can't believe there are people who believe in the trash like this TODAY. It's insane!
The funny part is that it CONTRADICTS FET!!! As according to FET there is no South Pole and Antarctica is guarded by an army of penguins.
Bishop, could you be constructive with your beliefs? How the whole thing is working for you - I can't get it. Maybe not just me. It looks like there are many many others also try hard to understand your "theory".
-
Or the sun to magically change where it's circling through the intervention of an intelligent, powerful being.
I need to read this book :)
Of course, you need. It's a collection of ideas of The Mad. Quite funny. Get some popcorn so you can enjoy more.
-
- Moon in southern hemisphere is upside-down. How can it be on a flat earth?
This is explained in the Wiki. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
OK that doesn't work. Explain to me how the moon is rotated 90 degrees at the equator (Nairobi, Kenya - where I spent many of my school years, 60 degrees here in Austin, Texas (where I happen to live) and around 40 degrees in the UK (where I used to live). When I visited South Africa, the moon was almost completely upside-down.
People from all along the same longitude line can see the moon at the same time - and the rotation angle is precisely what you'd expect it to be for a round earth.
Your explanation would also require the moon to be a flat disk, parallel to the surface of the Earth - but then it would appear as an ellipse in the sky - not the perfect circle it actually is.
You can't get away with a handwavy explanation like that - it simply doesn't match actual observations.
You can't even claim that these observations are wrong without flat out calling me (who has seen this phenomenon first hand over decades of moon watching) a liar...and I assure you that I am not.
-
Plus there are plenty of moon pictures that are from amateurs. No way ALL of them have been created by a conspiracy to maintain the lie about the moon not being a sphere.
-
Nothing really works in Flat Earth Theory. There is so much obvious evidence, still they deny all of it. It's not a theory it's a faith.
-
Nothing really works in Flat Earth Theory. There is so much obvious evidence, still they deny all of it. It's not a theory it's a faith.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
-
Nothing really works in Flat Earth Theory. There is so much obvious evidence, still they deny all of it. It's not a theory it's a faith.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
How about gravity? In order for a flat earth model to be rail gravity would have to be a lie since you would experience a different force depending on where you are. The idea that a disk is being perpetually propelled upward at a constant 9.8/ms^2 is insane, what is providing that force?
-
You want stone cold facts?
- During lunar eclipses (which occur2-5 times a year visible from all over the hemisphere) the Earth shadow cast on Moon is round. What shape casts round shadow in all angles? Right - a sphere
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0808/LEumbralshadow_ayiomamitis.jpg)
- Sinking beyond horizon ship. Don't tell me your perspective bullshit. Even no a single vide on YT proving this nonsens, but tens videos prove the opposite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8m1u2ORXmE&t=157s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GDhVoWSrMg
Look at this photo: and follow the line of the turbines on left. No bending light, no nothing. Just the curvature makes the farthest "touch" water
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rYSxRoFcXxmryu481P6sNrnO8RbN0F-OzcztymAjCQPo_63txcsk45bFBdPoWMyG4Hc1G8upYBIBkwj9Au_QONsMbk-pQ0obPBUfa9oV9eg6Y9O-GPd8wCDaFS0JLEpzPT6Cc59N618grKrnv59I3PK5FJQyumZi9e_OyC079huJZM7gnvNW6dqZeg7RWVJAUBTEoWJsbB7GfbToabXBxtpDwhyTvV3QMQMThksmTD4NclwXyra6ox8afo768Oi_GpTGGAhVpPSPmbKMVO2UdjFyNsgPGSViyI5iyYbdOzxDuf-WDOip3UwSBFTC8DhBx6wy8DH9IUyEVqP8ytIQGSIHfKzJdxUawg7gqadEldJdi47Ub2xDJ6k_oiJ8zMGRmw8hF2bhkWpMCnHADfVBc7dAbahWDScyE_Rj37E3Ex0zQJaICsuFEYm7dvI37XLjpt7DcGe44YdzJZljdTz9OBZfeejLnOsDRO18KOyLj8QRydAs_jLQnrzQ50NMlMBw7gpz7t4D9kXpEs4IaJJQOE8siYUE8CRp4t3MdRyg06zbmapYX6ibKUm_0FbXllOudFfoVcyDQpZHbN4249Q70YdKOLxFpCG_qIEi6u3N_IHHboz-xLov=w534-h632-no)
- Seismic waves create P-wave shadow zones during earthquakes which are symmetric and perfectly fits spherical earth, but not any other shape.
(http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/graphics/diagrams/Earth/pand%20s%20shadow.png)
- Stars moving. How could you explain different directions of stars spinning in northern and southern hemispheres?
(http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-West-1200x800-cp8.jpg)
- Moon in southern hemisphere is upside-down. How can it be on a flat earth?
(http://i.imgur.com/ZPY5fvh.jpg?fb)
These are just what popped into my mind. If you need more, I'll write you a bunch of others as well. And there is no relying on NASA images. Simply testable by anyone.
All planets are spherical and somehow Earth is magically flat? WTF?
Junker, as per your request. None of this was explained.
-
Oh and the explanation of the Moon upside-down in spherical earth is quite obvious.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/MtGJR4juH0snWtXRoN7AqJ5mKhBXwfsLkKp37I2tMa6f9Tv3J5thOodbB3T-b-KfV9aO3kdz-d5LGWrgRgjbh6toD48Qs2jZUrbYWr7zc_R6ZMc3kwrZPv_Wupgr6nx8lNb7GmzNuyHTHxAxYUKhQUqw1gWYk-KDrmzvrA5xtTOs9EkOENItcbDI_qC6rraJdq6jVy3tc9o-DPkfu_Tj0_qj8jhdpcM7egYH2jm-Bx5B2FPGczIaMV0gu_brzCLCmwk4_jR3E-f9U-2U4eq7LVjmkHm7-ixtAMqZ0YSj9bZtYveG28DSoav_ZXQKDRy6Es2XMZ07aM1GOvpJ-mkMEhbolL9CNhSvKT-0CFcaYT7To8lzoGXBcetdCIyyAXePlOZxHj5E2vnlJCcSYYNIq8nSu4YVwMS0V9UOtxg_TcRyv13Gf-zAKFvcNJeOKv6v7Xs1xyuFTpeyW0U8hR6_xYLUU0z0b8D0j8ovkxCbbDnGh3lNRFVctcSO8GwkHAoqKwoX0z34H3LHg2lj8501fvGvwi1ZUpWjNBvPkaeBbwO15EHqqgf_sYNu0NANdMTf4u92_dgqStTuW4KWjoT-8gse7MzVYXBYVh4aMeQyGLt2w9WPN6GkD-cR=w628-h417-no)
Also any explanation of flat earthers to Venus transition?
(http://media.pennlive.com/midstate_impact/photo/solar-transit-venus-newhjpg-d5e8dddabfcc1221.jpg)
-
Orbital rocket technologies are highly controlled. SpaceX is not independent. It's a government contractor and its employees are under direct government supervision and control for permission to develop/access these technologies. Do you really think the military would let technology which can easily be used as the vehicle for an ICBM be available as public knowledge?
Congratulations, this argument is known as "moving the goalpost". First you asserted that all rocket technology is classified military tech. When the commercial firm SpaceX was brought up, you modified your argument to be "classified military tech and also anything affiliated with government projects even if they also launch purely commercial satellites." Classic FE tactic.
As for tech that ICBMs use - this tech has literally been public knowledge since 7th-century China. You've been confused about what an ICBM is before. It stands for "Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile". It is just one type of weaponized ballistic missile, on a continuous spectrum with Battle Range Ballistic Missile on the lower end, and includes things like Theater range Ballistic Missile.
Ballistic Missiles have literally been used since the dawn of civilization. Trebuchets are a Ballistic Missile system.
Let's break it down, to give you some future clarity when using ICBMs to somehow try to debunk a globular earth (or prove that ICBMs don't exist? Something like that?). Here we go:
- Inter-Continental: Can reach another continent. In other words, has enough range to cross an ocean or sea.
- Ballistic: Moving only under the force of gravity. Free-falling. (Or in this specific context, following a parabolic trajectory governed solely by gravity.)
- Missile: An object forcibly propelled. In this case, by a Newtonian rocket engine.
If you read "ICBM" backwards, you get a better idea:
- A rocket forcibly propels a payload (e.g. a bomb) off the ground, eventually reaching a pre-calculated angle, direction, altitude, and speed.
- The rocket then stops and detaches from the payload.
- The payload then falls back to Earth on a predictable and pre-calculated parabolic path, hopefully to the intended target.
I had a friend in middle school that literally harnessed ICBM technology, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't working for the military, or part of a grand global conspiracy. He fired a payload (a plastic figurine with a parachute) at a crudely "calculated" angle and known burn duration, to deliver it to a target. (Granted the figurine wasn't really ballistic once the parachute popped, but not too different than passive aerodynamic steering/braking tech.) The rocket technology used was identical in concept to ICBMs - an impressively large newtonian rocket accelerating an aerodynamic cylinder, fitted with a rounded conical nose and stabilization fins. The only difference was choice of propellant for practical safety, economic, and scale concerns. And also size, range, and purpose.
Ballistic missiles by definition do not enter Earth orbit, even if they may extend beyond low-Earth orbit for very long distances. That would be extremely impractical, and require additional fuel and significant leap in technological capability, to de-orbit on target. There are/were fractional-orbit missile systems, and orbital missile systems are certainly possible if not existing. But "ballistic" is not part of their name. A ballistic missile is literally just lobbing a bomb from the ground, to the ground. (Though that may some day be expanded to include a bomb that eventually falls ballistically after using rockets to de-orbit from an orbital launch platform.)
-
Look up the chapter "Perspective at Sea" in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Except for the fact that it is utterly nonsensical. Rowbotham's fundamental mistake was in trying to superimpose first-person "perspective lines", onto side elevation views. That's not how "perspective" works, it is literally a meaningless concept, a fictional construct. Furthermore:
- "Perspective lines" are an abstract first-person perspective notion, not a concrete thing that can be diagrammed from a side view.
- "Perspective lines" and "horizon" have nothing necessarily to do with each other. Imagine an artist drawing a cube oriented randomly in the sky, using three-point perspective. None of the three "vanishing points" would be on the "horizon line".
- A "Vanishing point" is just that - an imaginary inferred point at which two or more parallel lines appear to converge to, from the literal visual point of view of an observer (or camera). It is not a specific point at some specific or arbitrary distance on an imaginary plane, that can be diagrammed independently of an observer.
Using the same nonsensical, invalid mashup of first-person perspective lines and vanishing points - overlaid onto side-view elevations, we get rubbish like:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GDaiw-G1VGE/sddefault.jpg#404_is_fine)
If you disagree with this critique of Rowbotham's "explanation", please explain Rowbotham's nonsensical explanation of perspective and vanishing points, in a way that makes sense, using contemporary language not littered with bullshit. I've asked you this for ten years, and have yet to even get a response period. I've read Robatham's explanation many times and can only conclude that the man's sheer ignorance was only exceeded only by his confidence and flowery prose - the Dunning Kruger Effect on full display. Those types seem to make the best dictators and cult leaders. He obviously has you snowed, nearly 200 years later.
-
Orbital rocket technologies are highly controlled. SpaceX is not independent. It's a government contractor and its employees are under direct government supervision and control for permission to develop/access these technologies. Do you really think the military would let technology which can easily be used as the vehicle for an ICBM be available as public knowledge?
Congratulations, this argument is known as "moving the goalpost". First you asserted that all rocket technology is classified military tech. When the commercial firm SpaceX was brought up, you modified your argument to be "classified military tech and also anything affiliated with government projects even if they also launch purely commercial satellites." Classic FE tactic.
As for tech that ICBMs use - this tech has literally been public knowledge since 7th-century China. You've been confused about what an ICBM is before. It stands for "Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile". It is just one type of weaponized ballistic missile, on a continuous spectrum with Battle Range Ballistic Missile on the lower end, and includes things like Theater range Ballistic Missile.
Ballistic Missiles have literally been used since the dawn of civilization. Trebuchets are a Ballistic Missile system.
Let's break it down, to give you some future clarity when using ICBMs to somehow try to debunk a globular earth (or prove that ICBMs don't exist? Something like that?). Here we go:
- Inter-Continental: Can reach another continent. In other words, has enough range to cross an ocean or sea.
- Ballistic: Moving only under the force of gravity. Free-falling. (Or in this specific context, following a parabolic trajectory governed solely by gravity.)
- Missile: An object forcibly propelled. In this case, by a Newtonian rocket engine.
If you read "ICBM" backwards, you get a better idea:
- A rocket forcibly propels a payload (e.g. a bomb) off the ground, eventually reaching a pre-calculated angle, direction, altitude, and speed.
- The rocket then stops and detaches from the payload.
- The payload then falls back to Earth on a predictable and pre-calculated parabolic path, hopefully to the intended target.
I had a friend in middle school that literally harnessed ICBM technology, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't working for the military, or part of a grand global conspiracy. He fired a payload (a plastic figurine with a parachute) at a crudely "calculated" angle and known burn duration, to deliver it to a target. (Granted the figurine wasn't really ballistic once the parachute popped, but not too different than passive aerodynamic steering/braking tech.) The rocket technology used was identical in concept to ICBMs - an impressively large newtonian rocket accelerating an aerodynamic cylinder, fitted with a rounded conical nose and stabilization fins. The only difference was choice of propellant for practical safety, economic, and scale concerns. And also size, range, and purpose.
Ballistic missiles by definition do not enter Earth orbit, even if they may extend beyond low-Earth orbit for very long distances. That would be extremely impractical, and require additional fuel and significant leap in technological capability, to de-orbit on target. There are/were fractional-orbit missile systems, and orbital missile systems are certainly possible if not existing. But "ballistic" is not part of their name. A ballistic missile is literally just lobbing a bomb from the ground, to the ground. (Though that may some day be expanded to include a bomb that eventually falls ballistically after using rockets to de-orbit from an orbital launch platform.)
Very well said. I would hope Tom comes back to discuss.