41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does flat earth account for flight times?

« on: November 07, 2017, 09:24:45 PM »

Air speed indicators are accurate to a degree, and while they are not used for navigation, they will give a reading that can confirm the shape of the earth.
Here is an article that shows a pilot claiming that an error of 6knots is outside of safe levels. http://rec.aviation.ifr.narkive.com/ISynE1Rf/airspeed-indicator-accuracy-tolerance
An inaccuracy of 6knots on a Boeing 747 at cruse speed is an error of just over 1%.

So yes you can't draw an accurate map based on flight speeds and time alone, but I think some of them would notice if they always had to fly twice as fast in one hemisphere than another.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does flat earth account for flight times?

« on: November 07, 2017, 10:24:46 AM »

What you think is a straight line in the Flat Earth is actually curved in real life. You just don't know it because the curvature of space is not as flat or endless as we are led to believe.

So the earth is flat, but it is only flat relative to a curved surface?
Is this curved surface possibly a sphere with a six thousand kilometre radius and that is why all observation match it being a globe?

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High altitude balloon video, consistent with round Earth

« on: November 05, 2017, 04:35:17 PM »

Looks like a spotlight from above coming into view.

Isn't the point of the 'spotlight' theory that you can't see light from the sun unless you are within the beam of the spotlight?

If the earth were flat and you could see the light from a spotlight sun from a balloon why could you not see it from the ground?

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some general questions about flat earth

« on: November 04, 2017, 06:26:48 PM »

*whispers* I think Tommy likes to watch Rick and Morty

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some unanswered questions

« on: November 04, 2017, 04:49:49 PM »

We can go into space, but we can't sustain spaceflight, because it would require constant burning of fuel. There's no "field" of UA that can be escaped like with gravity.

But UA theory proposes celestial gravity which increases with height pulling objects upwards.
So even under the UA theory there is still an escape velocity which can be reached.

46

Flat Earth Theory / How can FET explain all properties attributed to celestial gravitation

« on: November 04, 2017, 08:41:05 AM »

The wiki states that celestial gravitation is the cause of changes to perceived gravity, so to match observations attributed to celestial gravitation it must meet these criteria.
1 Is significantly lower across the equator.
2 The overall force lines are parallel to the earth's surface so are from a very distant object or uniform object.
3 The force increases with inverse square law.
4 Celestial gravitation speeds up time, taken from observations of time dilation on mountains.
5 Makes objects weigh more while travelling west than east.
6 The source is getting no closer to the earth over time.

Does FET have any explanation of how these match celestial gravitation?

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The case for flat Earth

« on: November 03, 2017, 06:15:22 PM »

since you believe in space travel

I have no idea where you got that from.

I'm confused.
You cited evidence gathered from spacetravel.
I said that most flat earthers did not believe that existed.
You complained I was taking a view that "no serious flat earther believed" and applying that to you. But I was correct to do that as you don't believe in spacetravel.

So to summarise, you don't believe in spacetravel, but will use evidence that is gathered from it?

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The case for flat Earth

« on: November 03, 2017, 04:35:03 PM »

Well obviously the first thing that drew my attention was among others the flyby anomaly which is by spacecraft and metric expansion by the hubble space telescope, which are from space travel and most of FET claim cannot exist. Is that your opinion on the matter?

Not quite. You see, a common debating strategy that Round Earthers use is to take something that no serious FE'er believes, assert that it is part of FET, and then act as if their disproof of a their own claim somehow hurts our cause. I simply find it interesting that the same Round Earthers take things that are provably not part of RET, and use them to justify RET.

I didn't assume that you believed that space travel didn't exist, I did actually ask you.
Unrelated to the thread but as you are here, since you believe in space travel, How could satellites orbit without a round earth? Especially polar orbits.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE orbit of planets

« on: November 03, 2017, 02:05:29 PM »

Back when geocentricism was all the rage - they ended up with more and more complex explanations for the orbits of planets that became SO insanely complex that it was eventually abandoned in favor of the much simpler heliocentric system.

Do you know where I can find these equations, I could do an animation for the wiki.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The case for flat Earth

« on: November 03, 2017, 01:32:58 PM »

Out of interest by who?

Wikipedia is a good starting point for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Well obviously the first thing that drew my attention was among others the flyby anomaly which is by spacecraft and metric expansion by the hubble space telescope, which are from space travel and most of FET claim cannot exist. Is that your opinion on the matter?

The rest are things that are not explained and related to gravity, a misunderstanding of gravity is not the only explanation for any of these. But if gravity was changed due to one of these observations, then I don't see how those would fit into the theory of universal acceleration.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The case for flat Earth

« on: November 03, 2017, 12:45:43 PM »

Gravitation as we "know" it has been soundly disproved, by people who think the Earth is round, no less.

Out of interest by who?
Because gravity has actually been detected in space, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves
and what we are all here for, on earth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_2

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE orbit of planets

« on: November 03, 2017, 08:55:02 AM »

I dont think Mercurey and Venus orbit over and undurneth the Sun (as in north-sowth, if thats what your saying). When I sayed they were closur I ment they were closur to the North Pole in an east-west direction, not nesasareley undurneth the Sun

If that was true then they could only be closer to one hemisphere at a time. They are observed to be closer than the sun to both North and South hemispheres at the same time. The only way it can be is if they are lower down than the sun is.

53

Flat Earth Theory / If you believe in UA why would gravity be weaker inside a mineshaft?

« on: November 02, 2017, 09:57:55 AM »

The wiki argues that objects fall due to the earth constantly accelerating and gravity is weaker at higher altitudes due to celestial gravity. The closerto the sky the weaker the downward force as the celestial gravity is pulling you up.

But there is less gravity underneath the earth's surface such as in a mine shaft.
How does this explain the downwards force being weaker the further from the sky you are?

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE orbit of planets

« on: November 02, 2017, 09:49:33 AM »

But in FET the Mercury and Venus are the only two planets that orbit over and underneath the sun right?
Otherwise they could not be closer than the sun on both the inner and outer hemispheres.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FET explain an object heading east weighing more than one heading west?

« on: November 01, 2017, 09:17:03 AM »

GOD DAMMIT, I even googled that to check I spelt it correctly so I wouldn't look stupid.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clouds

« on: October 31, 2017, 02:53:48 PM »

Sorry, try again? FE perspective does catch clouds in the explanation for how they dip to the horizon. (Small bit of math later) On average the clouds don't even have to be all that far away (compared to the sun) to be reduced below the angular limit of our eyes. However your second point is a curiosity, but FE would chalk it up to the whole 'math breaks down at long distances' that allows sunset and such to work. Just in reverse allowing us to see different sides of the clouds since they aren't up nearly as high.

Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the right words for this.

As the clouds are further away you see a larger amount of the underside of the cloud.

With the example of a pair of railway lines appearing to get closer together as they become further away, the inner side of each rail will take up less of your vision the further away it is. With a cloud the edge that should be facing you takes up less space as it moves away but the underside will at first take up less space but then as the far edge of the cloud falls towards the horizon the underside of the cloud will take up more space.

57

Flat Earth Theory / How does FET explain an object heading east weighing more than one heading west?

« on: October 31, 2017, 02:40:55 PM »

The Eotvos effect is described as the apparent change in gravity or an object moving either east or west.
When an observer is travelling east they will experience more gravity, and when heading west will experience less gravity.
This effect is at its strongest on the equator.

How would this fit into the flat earth model of gravity?

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there a ring of lower gravity 10,000 KM from the centre of the earth?

« on: October 31, 2017, 11:32:42 AM »

Celestial gravity is used as an explanation for why gravity is less at higher altitudes as you are closer to the source of the gravity. Which must mean that it has a lesser effect at a longer range.
As other than the pull of the moon and the sun gravity has no vertical component we know that no part of the earth is closer to a source of gravity than another. IE, if there was a higher source of celestial gravity at the equator then there would be vertical pull towards these areas.
The scale of difference in apparent gravity would require the source to be very low down so it can be significantly closer to one point than another, which would mean that the pull would be highly horizontal.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clouds

« on: October 30, 2017, 03:54:53 PM »

Perspective doesn't answer the question of the clouds not touching the ground.
As you look at the clouds you can see the underside of them as they lower to the horizon. If one were to accept the FE view of perspective, then that would explain the clouds being lower, not your ability to see the cloud from a different angle.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does flat earth account for flight times?

« on: October 29, 2017, 08:36:30 AM »

J-Man, why are you asking him to ignore evidence?
There are very clear signs as to if a plane has gone supersonic, namely a loud crack and a moisture cloud behind the tail. So we know no commercial jet ever goes faster than 1234 km an hour, (800 miles an hour).
.

But then a plane can fly from mexico city to ciaro to beijin and back to mexico city in 49 hours.
The same model of plane can fly from santiago to capetown to aukland to santiago in 51 hours.
The southern route is at no point closer than 10500 km from the northen route. (And don't claim it's NASA magic as it is measured as ground distance in all but two cases but there is a lot of ground between beijing and aukland).

So from the formula for a circle we can estimate the extra travel time of the southern route as 2pi*10500 km giving an extra66 thousand kilometres that the plane is supposed to travel with just two more hours of flight time.
Even if the southern plane went at the speed of sound, it would need 53 hours just to cover that EXTRA DISTANCE ALONE!