Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tintagel

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 23  Next >
21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 28, 2015, 10:07:57 PM »
It's likely that being astonomers/astrologist that the idea came from looking at the moon, it strikes me as strange, looking across these discussions how few of the FEers have taken a good look at the night sky and this particular body.

It is clearly round, look at this picture.
http://space-facts.com/the-moon/

Go and have a look, take a pair of binoculars if you don't have a telescope, when it is in partial shadow that shadow alone gives its shape away, the "rays" of debris from the craters curve, really have a look.

I own a telescope, I've observed the moon many times.  However; the apparent shape of the moon doesn't imply anything about the shape of the earth.  The earth has significant observable differences, even if you don't consider its shape, not the least of which is life.

22
Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 28, 2015, 07:28:52 PM »
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?


I think that you must have not really spent much time looking.

Almost all well educated people have known that the Earth is round for at least 2000 years probably more.
The only people who thought otherwise where more influenced by religion than science.

So you think that Russia and China (who do not have particularly close relations with us -particularly 40 years ago) as well as the other 40 or more nations which have some space activity are all in cahoots in this plot?

The idea of a spherical earth came from Ancient Greece.  They believed the earth must be a perfect sphere, because they were keen on the idea of perfect geometries.  They believed that all of the celestial bodies must be perfect spheres, and therefore Earth must be as well.  They were wrong, but the idea caught on.  The reason almost all "well educated people" believe anything of the sort is because it's the most popular idea at the time.

How do you know the earth is round?  I'm not asking what you've been taught, or what you've read.  How do you, yourself know?

You don't.

23
I think the existence of the watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.  I think there was/is an architect.  I do not think there is any evidence to imply that said architect is a deity in the supernatural sense.

24
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Time for a new SMF theme?
« on: October 27, 2015, 11:08:02 PM »
Blanko does excellent work as usual.  I think the new one looks lovely!

25
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat-Earthers
« on: October 27, 2015, 07:36:08 PM »
1) How do you explain the eclipse of the moon? At present the explanation is that the earth is a globe, and the moon revolves round it. Thus, as the globists would say, this happens when the global earth stands (not literally of course) between the sun and the moon.
2) Also, when I was at school, my teacher said that the rounded shape of the eclipse silhouette (supposedly due to the global earth) projected onto the moon is a proof of the round earth, got it? Don't worry I am both flat and round, that's my name.
3) The seasons, the length of days in winter and summer - this can only properly explained if the earth is round.
4) The zodiacs and the precession of the equinoxes can only happen if the earth is round, may be.

Hello, FlatGlobe.  I hope we can help you find some clarity.

1. The moon's eclipse seems to be caused by a shadow, but we do not know what casts it.  If the lunar eclipse were caused by earth's shadow, then we would never be able to have a lunar eclipse while the sun was also visible in the sky; yet this happens, and is well documented.

2. The penumbra (the edge of the shadow) appears to be rounded, yes, but as you can see, there are many round objects in the sky, so this isn't surprising.  Assuming that it is caused by earth would lead to the conclusion that earth must be round, but if you don't make that assumption (and you shouldn't, because there is evidence to the contrary), then that shadow doesn't have any bearing on earth's shape at all.

3. Not true.  In summer in the northern hemidisc (the northern hemisphere, if you prefer), the sun circles above the earth in a smaller circle, always north of the equator.  In winter in the northern hemidisc, the sun circles along a wider path, mainly staying south of the equator.  The seasons and changing length of day/night work just fine on a flat earth.

4. The precession of the equinoxes also work just fine on a flat earth.  Just as the sun and moon circle above, the celestial dome also circles above us.  However, the sun is not fixed to the celestial dome.  Just as the sun and moon circle at different rates, the sun and celestial dome circle at different rates, and during the year the sun appears to move through the zodiac constellations due to this motion relative to the dome.

26
Flat Earth Theory / Re: General Questions
« on: January 21, 2015, 01:07:16 PM »

27
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Palaeontology of a flat earth
« on: January 19, 2015, 06:13:34 PM »
There are various flat Earth models that maintain the Earth as an infinite plane and therefore in no need of any barrier keeping things from "falling off" the sides.

Adding to this, there are various flat Earth models that work without the Earth being infinite.

Aetheric Acceleration theory states that the aether is a force that pushes the Earth upwards, a lot of this aether escapes from the bottom of the disc and makes it way upward due to its acceleration. This creates a barrier (or wall, if you will) around Earth that keeps the water in.
Where is the evidence for Aetheric Acceleration? Please explain in Laymans terms, as i am no physicist ( or flat-earther )

The theory deals with universal acceleration.  It states that aether, which pushes the earth upward, accelerating it at 9.8 m/s/s, also whooshes by us and holds the water in.  There's also an aetheric whirlpool above the earth where the aether whooshes back together, like a fluid would rushing around a disc, and that this whirlpool are where the sun, moon, and other satellites are suspended. 

Aether has never been directly detected (that I know of), and remains a hypothetical substance, but this doesn't make it less valid as a theory, as hypothetical substances are frequently used in "mainstream" science to explain observed phenomena.

28
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Palaeontology of a flat earth
« on: January 19, 2015, 06:09:04 PM »
so there is an infinite snowy wasteland everywhere except for a little insignificant circle. Kind of like the Japanese flag design.
correct? Could you answer my original questions also please? And tintagel claims that the ice wall might not be infinite.

I'm not sure there's an ice wall at all.  I don't know that it's a snowy wasteland extending forever either.  It's entirely possible there are other habitable regions.  I haven't been there, so I don't know.  But I do suspect it's infinite, in which case an ice wall isn't necessary.

29
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Palaeontology of a flat earth
« on: January 19, 2015, 04:22:30 AM »
no, you see.
A flat earth model requires a barrier of some kind at the edge to prevent water slipping off due to gravity (or something similar).

No, it doesn't.

Thus, we have the theory that antarctica is the ice wall that stretches all around the rim of the earth. This theory is predicated on the fact that Antarctica cannot move.

No, it isn't.

But continental drift theory postulates that Antarctica was once much further north than it is now, possibly connected to Africa and Australia. Palaeontology also says that plant and animal life have been preserved there. This can either mean that the earth was in a warm period ( which does not at all correlate with some FE'ers claims that global warming isn't true), or that antarctica once lifted further north, into where the Indian Ocean is now.
This means that there wouldn't have been an ice wall, to prevent water slipping off. QED

Your hypotheses are incorrect, thus your conclusion is also incorrect.

30
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology of a flat earth
« on: January 18, 2015, 05:42:53 PM »
Hi all,
The conventional view of geology states that the earth is composed of a thin crust or lithosphere, then a large molten area known as the mantle, then a semi-solid outer core, and finally a solid iron inner core. This can explain things like continental drift, volcanoes, earthquakes and mountains. But, this view relies on gravity existing, the earth being spherical, and the word of governmental mining and research bodies. Thanks to this website, all three of these can be debunked(?).
If so, using the flat earth model, what would the internal composition of the world be?
Do tectonic plates exist? if so, how do they move without gravity induced convection currents?
And if tectonic plates don't exist, then how can volcanoes, earthquakes and mountain ranges be explained?
And please don't redirect me to the FAQ's, as they don't contain any of these answers.
Thanks

I personally believe that gravity does exist.  I do not, however, pretend to understand the machinations of the areas under the earth.  I read an interesting essay once that postulated (on a round earth, no less) that subduction doesn't exist, rather the earth is growing, and found it pretty interesting.  The oldest land on earth are the continents, and everything else gets younger going to areas like the mid-atlantic ridge, and even places thought to be subduction zones.  I believe it was called expanding earth theory, if you want to look into it. 

I thought about what that would mean on a flat earth for a bit, but I never got around to constructing a model for it.  Perhaps I should revisit it.

31
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Palaeontology of a flat earth
« on: January 18, 2015, 05:33:08 PM »
Hi again,
Did dinosaurs exist on a flat earth, if at all?
What do you say to the claims of continental drift? As in Antarctica once being connected to Africa and Australia at one point?
What about the remains of vegetation found on antarctica indicating it used to be lush and forested?
Also, the discovery of life once existing there?
Both of these claims debunk the claim of antarctica being an (in)finite snowy wasteland. This is a fundamental part of FET, and thus requires some defence.

There's nothing on a flat earth that would preclude continental drift, even including bits of antarctica or the continent as a whole.  Also, the idea of antatcica as the ice rim, finite or infinite, isn't always fundamental.  Some models, such as Bishop's, render it as a distinct continent. 

32
Flat Earth Theory / Re: australia
« on: January 18, 2015, 04:07:59 PM »
thank you so much? i was pretty sure that i had made a point that the flat earth model was northern hemisphere centred? I was prefacing a discussion, but thank you for being pedantic. Ill make this as clear as i can.
"what is your point of view on the issue of spatial distortion and/or different distances involved in the contemporary view of a flat earth on those landmasses in the southern hemisphere e.g.. australia?"
That is my question and i expect a satisfactory (but not necessarily logical) answer.
Good day. Friend

The spatial distortion arises from map distortion.  Fractally recursive geography, of which I am a supporter, does not have these spatial issues in the southern hemidisc.  Unfortunately it's also difficult to represent in two dimensions.

33
Flat Earth Theory / Re: australia
« on: January 18, 2015, 01:31:00 AM »
On the contrary, we have many Australian members.  I won't name names because I respect the privacy of our members, but they're here.

34
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight route Sydney to Johannesburg
« on: January 18, 2015, 01:19:47 AM »
just like you assume that the earth is flat, hey tintagel. i think pilots who regularly spend lots of time at very high altitudes would have more expertise on this than you.

Why would you think that?  The earth looks flat from an aircraft as well. 

35
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight route Sydney to Johannesburg
« on: January 18, 2015, 01:03:20 AM »
No, the geographic and the magnetic poles are not aligned. Why would knowing north from south cause a pilot or any navigator to take a needlessly longer route anyway?

Because they assume the earth is a sphere. 

36
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight route Sydney to Johannesburg
« on: January 17, 2015, 10:41:30 PM »

Yes, I certainly can. I found this, where you can see that the red path (from my previous attachment) would actually cross a lot of those magnetic lines, which doesn't serve your argument at all...
EDIT: I'm not sure that the link I provided actually shows the magnetic lines, so I'll search some more. However, the argument of magnetic lines has been brought by you FEers and I'm actually doing your job of refuting arguments- or trying to -  against FET. It's a bit ironic.

You're being deliberately obtuse.  The magnetic field lines run north to south.  Of course you wouldn't literally follow them to travel east or west, but the compass still indicates the direction using those lines.

37
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight route Sydney to Johannesburg
« on: January 17, 2015, 02:13:04 PM »
Hi there!

another thread from Sceptom. The flight route that planes actually take to go from Sydney to Johannesburg would look something like the red path (file attached) on your flat earth.

Why? why such a counter-intuitive and obviously longer and more expensive route, and why not the green one?

Aircraft use instruments.  Instruments follow magnetic field lines, and this would guide it along that route.
The green route on my previous attachment goes above lots of lands. Are you telling me that they are unable to communicate with people on the ground in order to follow the most obvious route? No flight company ever tried this and save millions?

Also, could you please show us the data that says that there is a "magnetic line" along the red route?

I am sure you can google to learn how the magnetic lines of force around the earth are oriented.  Additionally, at the risk of opening an entirely new can of worms, the Green route only appears shorter on your inaccurate disc map.  I don't support the literal disc earth, I support an infinite earth with fractally recursive geography. 

38
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis effect in FET
« on: January 17, 2015, 02:28:32 AM »
The answer we've given in the past to this question is that the stars have a slight gravitational field. This is how the variation of g at high altitudes is explained. The stars are also rotating above the earth at one rotation per 24 hours. That bullets and artillery shells are are deflected is because the stars are pulling the bullet.
Interesting. This has a predictable consequence: if you stand at the equator and fire a canon either towards north (towards north pole) or towards south (towards the opposite direction), the coriolis effect would be stronger in the south direction than in the north direction.

Which is not what we observe so your theory is wrong.
How do you know?  I don't believe you have stood on the equator and fired a cannon north or south, so you cannot definitively say that this doesn't happen.
Here's a list of where you can go to observe the effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums

Yep, he's right. FET disproved.

What on earth does a Foucault pendulum have to do with a cannon?

39
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight route Sydney to Johannesburg
« on: January 17, 2015, 02:25:12 AM »
Hi there!

another thread from Sceptom. The flight route that planes actually take to go from Sydney to Johannesburg would look something like the red path (file attached) on your flat earth.

Why? why such a counter-intuitive and obviously longer and more expensive route, and why not the green one?

Aircraft use instruments.  Instruments follow magnetic field lines, and this would guide it along that route.
No instruments "follow" magnetic fields lines. Even if some did, why would anyone take a longer route just to follow a magnetic field line?

The compass would like a word with you.

40
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight route Sydney to Johannesburg
« on: January 17, 2015, 12:45:38 AM »
Hi there!

another thread from Sceptom. The flight route that planes actually take to go from Sydney to Johannesburg would look something like the red path (file attached) on your flat earth.

Why? why such a counter-intuitive and obviously longer and more expensive route, and why not the green one?

Aircraft use instruments.  Instruments follow magnetic field lines, and this would guide it along that route.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 23  Next >