-
There has been a distinct lack of flat earthers trying to defend the flat earth theory on this forum lately. Are there any out there with evidence for a flat earth that hasn't been recently debunked?
(Intikam doesn't count, obviously)
-
There has been a distinct lack of flat earthers trying to defend the flat earth theory on this forum lately. Are there any out there with evidence for a flat earth that hasn't been recently debunked?
(Intikam doesn't count, obviously)
Tom Bishop is rhe FE expert.
-
There has been a distinct lack of flat earthers trying to defend the flat earth theory on this forum lately. Are there any out there with evidence for a flat earth that hasn't been recently debunked?
(Intikam doesn't count, obviously)
Intikam doesn't "trying to defend the flat earth theory", he just states "Intikam FACTS" with "no correspondence will be entered into".
-
I do hope to see others. I like the actual debate, even though we'll probably always disagree. Inti takes that away. With him, either you agree, or you're "disrespecting" him.
-
Who wrote what?
(https://i.imgsafe.org/6112f8632b.png)
Who cares. :)
-
There has been a distinct lack of flat earthers trying to defend the flat earth theory on this forum lately. Are there any out there with evidence for a flat earth that hasn't been recently debunked?
(Intikam doesn't count, obviously)
Maybe they (flat earthers) are hoping Intikam will tire of his crusade and go away, so they can have their website back.
Or maybe we've convinced them, all of a sudden.
-
There has been a distinct lack of flat earthers trying to defend the flat earth theory on this forum lately. Are there any out there with evidence for a flat earth that hasn't been recently debunked?
(Intikam doesn't count, obviously)
Maybe they (flat earthers) are hoping Intikam will tire of his crusade and go away, so they can have their website back.
Or maybe we've convinced them, all of a sudden.
Even if you convinced them, they would never admit it.
I once worked for a company that shut down for several weeks every year for everyone to take a vacation. Maybe all of the flat earthers are away on a vacatiion ?
I would hope some of them are taking a cruise to see the ice wall. Maybe some of them will bring back some pictures of it. Or some pictures of the non-horizon which is "an indistinct blur which fades away in an infinite distance."
-
There has been a distinct lack of flat earthers trying to defend the flat earth theory on this forum lately. Are there any out there with evidence for a flat earth that hasn't been recently debunked?
(Intikam doesn't count, obviously)
Maybe they (flat earthers) are hoping Intikam will tire of his crusade and go away, so they can have their website back.
Or maybe we've convinced them, all of a sudden.
Even if you convinced them, they would never admit it.
I once worked for a company that shut down for several weeks every year for everyone to take a vacation. Maybe all of the flat earthers are away on a vacatiion ?
I would hope some of them are taking a cruise to see the ice wall. Maybe some of them will bring back some pictures of it. Or some pictures of the non-horizon which is "an indistinct blur which fades away in an infinite distance."
They are probably down Antarctica way proving that the South Pole does not get a midnight sun all summer.
-
There has been a distinct lack of flat earthers trying to defend the flat earth theory on this forum lately. Are there any out there with evidence for a flat earth that hasn't been recently debunked?
(Intikam doesn't count, obviously)
-
ok then globe earthers the circumference of the earth with your measurements e.g. 24,901miles with a radius of 3,959miles the curvature Equation of a ball earth with mainstream science measurements 8 inches per mile multiplied by the distance squared miles.example 8 inches x 50miles ^2 8 inches x 2500=20000 inches /12feet =1666feet meaning there should be 1666feet of curvature along the distance of 50 miles 60 miles=2400feet of curvature
70 miles =3266feet of curvature
80miles = 4256 feet of curvature
90 miles = 5400 feet of curvature
100 miles = 6666 feet of curvature
So taking mainstream science calculations into account the salt flats of Bolivia are 100 miles in length by about 80 miles in width so take into account the measurements of the earth then at 100 miles the curvature should be as above 6666 feet that's 1.2 miles yet it only drops by 3feet over the whole surface this alone proves we are not a spheroid because the definition of sphere in geometry is " a three dimensional shape that looks like a ball ". "A solid that is bounded by a surface consisting of all points at a given distance from a point constituting it's centre". Basically means no straight lines even at a micro scale of a ball. So if we're on a spinning ball how come we got so much flatness of hundreds of miles just a thought for you ball earthers to ponder over .
-
"The theory of relativity is just a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent Garb which fascinates,dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying error"
Nikola Tesla .
You are not on a ball let alone a spinning one.planets are not what you think they are.The stars rotate above us and return to their same positions year after year and have done so for eternity.The horizon is always eye level no matter how high you are and that is only possible on a flat plane.the small sun and moon rotate above us clockwise
-
ok then globe earthers the circumference of the earth with your measurements e.g. 24,901miles with a radius of 3,959miles the curvature Equation of a ball earth with mainstream science measurements 8 inches per mile multiplied by the distance squared miles.example 8 inches x 50miles ^2 8 inches x 2500=20000 inches /12feet =1666feet meaning there should be 1666feet of curvature along the distance of 50 miles 60 miles=2400feet of curvature
70 miles =3266feet of curvature
80miles = 4256 feet of curvature
90 miles = 5400 feet of curvature
100 miles = 6666 feet of curvature
So taking mainstream science calculations into account the salt flats of Bolivia are 100 miles in length by about 80 miles in width so take into account the measurements of the earth then at 100 miles the curvature should be as above 6666 feet that's 1.2 miles yet it only drops by 3feet over the whole surface this alone proves we are not a spheroid because the definition of sphere in geometry is " a three dimensional shape that looks like a ball ". "A solid that is bounded by a surface consisting of all points at a given distance from a point constituting it's centre". Basically means no straight lines even at a micro scale of a ball. So if we're on a spinning ball how come we got so much flatness of hundreds of miles just a thought for you ball earthers to ponder over .
Where is there sound evidence that "it only drops by 3feet over the whole surface"? And drops compared to what - "mean sea level"?
Sure, being a sphere means "means no straight lines even at a micro scale of a ball", but what is the deviation from a straight line in:
Width | | Deviation |
100 yds | | 0.006" |
200 yds | | 0.026" |
500 yds | | 0.016" |
1000 yds | | 0.65" |
1 mile | | 2" |
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20nearly%20Flat%20on%20Globe_zpsgdvt5ny2.png)
The earth may be a globe, but on a local scale it's still very flat.
-
ok then if we are indeed on a ball how come you cannot detect any curvature? Yes of course we have hills and elavations. And water will always find its level (flatness) it cannot be curved it can't have a hump in it.e.g.from California to Hawaii it is 2,467 miles. Between the two states there should be a "hump" of 770 miles if we're on a globe!! No hump is possible in water use your eyes that's why it's called sea level not sea curve..
"Create a belief in the theory and the facts will create themselves" (Joseph jastow 1935)
Plus there was a study in Kansas where they measured it to be flatter than a pancake.they measured it from west to east and it is approximately 420 miles across so going with the measurements of the earth we can't be a ball because it would be impossible to have a distance of that greatness to be flat! it should have a curvature of at least 22miles across in a distance of 420 miles but it's dead flat.Hundreds of miles of flatness with little change in elevation in several states across America ... And we're on a ball? What kind of ball is that then? Same as ships don't vanish over the horizon they come back into view with any decent telescope or binoculars ,earths atmosphere gives us limited visibility.
-
Plus where is your sound evidence that were on a ball ? What maybe photos from nasa? Show me one unedited photo of our ball earth without the use of photoshop or cgi.cmon open your eyes.another example is there is supposed to be thousands of satellites in space but how come when you watch live feed of the iss you never ever see any? plus so many independent rockets , balloons have been sent up (without fish eye lense camera) and there is no curvature detected anywhere and the horizon is always eye level if we were on a ball you would have to look down because of the so called curvature but no matter how high you go the horizon remains the same.im not saying we are dead flat all I'm saying is it ain't a ball like we're told it is
-
https://youtu.be/PxqhU6nEy6c
-
https://youtu.be/g5Xf__qQzqk
https://youtu.be/AvAnfi8WpVE. How is this even possible no delay whatsoever ?? Iss debunked straight away open your eyes globe earthers
https://youtu.be/AkkLO4oEQS4
-
They use chromakey screens for the longer videos and zero g planes for the shorter videos
-
ok then if we are indeed on a ball how come you cannot detect any curvature? Yes of course we have hills and elavations. And water will always find its level (flatness) it cannot be curved it can't have a hump in it.e.g.from California to Hawaii it is 2,467 miles. Between the two states there should be a "hump" of 770 miles if we're on a globe!! No hump is possible in water use your eyes that's why it's called sea level not sea curve..
"Create a belief in the theory and the facts will create themselves" (Joseph jastow 1935)
Ever heard of gravity? There is no law that says that the surface of water has to be flat! Water just finds the level that has the lowest energy, which is as far down as possible. On the globe that is as close to the centre as possible.
Plus there was a study in Kansas where they measured it to be flatter than a pancake.they measured it from west to east and it is approximately 420 miles across so going with the measurements of the earth we can't be a ball because it would be impossible to have a distance of that greatness to be flat! it should have a curvature of at least 22miles across in a distance of 420 miles but it's dead flat.Hundreds of miles of flatness with little change in elevation in several states across America ... And we're on a ball? What kind of ball is that then? Same as ships don't vanish over the horizon they come back into view with any decent telescope or binoculars ,earths atmosphere gives us limited visibility.
Kansas flatter than a pancake, sure! How flat is a pancake?
(http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas-2.gif)
Figure 2. Pancake cross-sectional surface being digitized.
(http://i.imgur.com/5ldZ3UZ.jpg)
Figure 4. Surface topography of Kansas and of a pancake.
But you might just find that the reference for flatness is "mean sea level", take a look at Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake (http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html).
Same as ships don't vanish over the horizon they come back into view with any decent telescope or binoculars ,earths atmosphere gives us limited visibility.
That has never been proved. There are numerous videos of ships disappearing, but I have never seen a convincing one of a ship, or part of a ship, that has disappeared actually being brought back into view.
Have a look at this post (on the other site) Re: Shouldn't we be able to see beaches of other countries if we used telescopes? « Reply #30 on: May 27, 2016, 03:59:01 AM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66866.msg1784787#msg1784787)
Yes Create a belief in the theory and the facts will create themselves
is certainly true. The flat earth movement just looked at the local earth and it looked flat, so decided that the whole earth must be flat. Now, they have to create numerous unprovable "facts" to explain the unexplainable!
So, come up with some evidence, then try again!
You are just quoting the usual indoctrination that Flat Earther get, bit without any evidence to back it up!
-
They use green screens for the longer videos and zero g planes for the shorter videos
That is not a green screen (or blue screen)! A blue screen would hardly have white lines crossing it! That would completely defeat the purpose.
You're just quoting rubbish you've seen without any real evidence.
Really, you had better got back to the "Flat Earther Indoctrination Academy". ;D Obviously you shouldn't have graduated yet. ;D
-
I never said were flat I just said we don't live on a spinning ball.and as for using gravity as an explanation your just quoting stuff that someone else has said aswell so what makes your evidence so correct ? Albert Einstein was a Freemason there is no such thing as gravity. We're just heavier than air it's all about density and buoyancy. Think about it how could an aeroplane land on a moving runway if the earth was spinning and why if you took a flight from London to New York going with the spin of the earth and from New York back to London going against it (whichever way one way would be against the spin) why does it take the same amount of time ? Surely one way would take longer?..
-
What so the video with Tim peak in the background in front of a chromakey screen not green screen sorry didn't know I had to be so precise how do you explain That? If he was in space they wouldn't have to fake it with cgi crap would they?
-
Or how do you explain Chris hadfield video singing live with people on earth with no time delay whatsoever when he was on the space station? That's unexplainable because every time you see nasa talking to the space station there is always a couple second delay.so how do you explain that? So obviously it was faked and he wasn't even on the iss so if they can lie to us about space then what makes you think your so certain in your beliefs about the ball earth theory which is indoctrinated to the masses by the same people ??
-
Next your be telling me that the moon controls the tides on earth from its gravitational pull lol. How could it do that when the gravity on earth is so called stronger than the moons so how could the moons weaker gravity overpower earths stronger gravity ( if gravity exists like you say it does )
-
They use green screens for the longer videos and zero g planes for the shorter videos
That is not a green screen (or blue screen)! A blue screen would hardly have white lines crossing it! That would completely defeat the purpose.
You're just quoting rubbish you've seen without any real evidence.
Really, you had better got back to the "Flat Earther Indoctrination Academy". ;D Obviously you shouldn't have graduated yet. ;D
plus if we're on a ball or spheroid whatever you wanna call it then there should be no flatness anywhere otherwise it isn't a ball so clearly we are not a ball because there is vast amounts of flatness all over the earth
-
What so the video with Tim peak in the background in front of a chromakey screen not green screen sorry didn't know I had to be so precise how do you explain That? If he was in space they wouldn't have to fake it with cgi crap would they?
https://youtu.be/8Wznf3k57fA
-
There has been a distinct lack of flat earthers trying to defend the flat earth theory on this forum lately. Are there any out there with evidence for a flat earth that hasn't been recently debunked?
(Intikam doesn't count, obviously)
Because it's not a flat earther's job to defend a theory from arrogant self righteous armchair pseudo-scientists.
Not everyone can get paid to do this all day.
-
What so the video with Tim peak in the background in front of a chromakey screen not green screen sorry didn't know I had to be so precise how do you explain That? If he was in space they wouldn't have to fake it with cgi crap would they?
https://youtu.be/8Wznf3k57fA
The colour of the screen was not the important issue (green and blue are both used), but the in the 1st case you could never use a screen with crisscross white lines across it.
So, Tim peak was NOT in front of a chromakey screen - that is the point, it was not a "chromakey screen".
And I am not going to hunt through you 1 hour and 4 min video to find the blue one - you find it.
Who gave you this task of rehashing old material that has been tackled dozens of times?
-
I never said were flat I just said we don't live on a spinning ball.
Except you did say exactly that:
The horizon is always eye level no matter how high you are and that is only possible on a flat plane
Think about it how could an aeroplane land on a moving runway if the earth was spinning and why if you took a flight from London to New York going with the spin of the earth and from New York back to London going against it (whichever way one way would be against the spin) why does it take the same amount of time ? Surely one way would take longer?..
In fact, flights in one direction DO take longer. Flights from New York to London (https://www.google.com/flights/?hl=en-us#search;f=JFK,EWR,LGA;t=LHR,LGW,LCY,STN,LTN,QQS;d=2016-08-09;r=2016-08-18;s=0;q=flights+new+york+to+london) take about seven hours. Flights from London to New York (https://www.google.com/flights/?hl=en-us#search;f=LHR,LGW,LCY,STN,LTN,QQS;t=JFK,EWR,LGA;d=2016-08-09;r=2016-08-18;s=0;q=flights+new+york+to+london) take about eight. However, this has nothing to do with the rotation of the earth. If I may borrow your charming wording "Think about it": if that were the reason, then the eastbound flight would take longer, as you 'chased' London around the spin. No, the reason is the prevailing winds (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/40-our-solar-system/the-earth/climate-and-weather/68-why-do-airplanes-take-longer-to-fly-west-than-east-intermediate). And as to the question of landing on a moving runway, the answer is that the atmosphere moves right along with the runway, and everything else on the earth's surface, so you don't have the sensation of movement that you are picturing. Plus, you CAN land a plane on a moving runway: they're called aircraft carriers, and the world's navies have been landing on them for decades.
and as for using gravity as an explanation your just quoting stuff that someone else has said aswell so what makes your evidence so correct? Albert Einstein was a Freemason there is no such thing as gravity.
Ah, you've said the magic word! The one word that tells us all that nothing we say will convince you. I'll quit wasting my time. Thank you for that!
-
Oh ok so have you got concrete proof of your prevailing winds and how the atmosphere sticks to the earth and moves around with us that's why we don't feel any movement?what a load of bollocks. Ok then so how come every railway in the world that has been built engineers never take into account for the curvature of the earth ? Or canals so don't you think they would take that into account ? The curvature of our so called ball earth when they were building these canals or railways? It's just cognitive dissonance at its best with all you ball earthers.but no one has explained the Chris hadfield video to me about there being no time delay when he's singing live from the space station with the band on earth there's no way he would be in perfect time. Plus all you ball earthers must be so stupid to think that all these images from nasa of earth and Mars e.t.c is real. Their wifi connection is amazing to travel through space for thousands of miles and still be connected to it to receive the images back.wow and control rover on Mars from earth that's amazing!! Wish talk talk would invest in this connection technology I can barely go in my garden and it looses connection.
-
so what makes your evidence so correct ? Albert Einstein was a Freemason there is no such thing as gravity.
Where is your evidence for your disbelief in gravity?
Even if Albert was a freemason, it doesn't make him bad, or his theories invalid.
I knew a boy scout once, his name was Andrew. Now Andrew had some very interesting ideas about flight; specifically that if he jumped off the roof of the school shed wearing goggles and a plastic bag tied around his shoulders, that he could fly. Now, despite his efforts of researching the way the bag should be tied and what colours to paint onto the bag, no matter how many times he jumped off the roof he always seemed to fail in his attempts. He did succeed in breaking his arm in two places though. We all thought it was pretty awesome as we got to draw on his plaster cast and this one girl, Sue, thought that Andrew was so cool that they began to hold hands during school. They only held hands at recess though as they were in different classes, but at lunchtime one day we caught them kissing. We threw rocks at them from the safety of the bushes, but Andrew got pretty mad and started chasing after us threatening to kill us with his jedi mind powers.
Now I have never attributed Andrew's failure to fly or his success in kissing Sue to his membership in the Boy Scouts.
What specifically about someone being a freemason invalidates their contribution to science?
-
https://youtu.be/4J18e30zTyE
-
so what makes your evidence so correct ? Albert Einstein was a Freemason there is no such thing as gravity.
Where is your evidence for your disbelief in gravity?
Even if Albert was a freemason, it doesn't make him bad, or his theories invalid.
I knew a boy scout once, his name was Andrew. Now Andrew had some very interesting ideas about flight; specifically that if he jumped off the roof of the school shed wearing goggles and a plastic bag tied around his shoulders, that he could fly. Now, despite his efforts of researching the way the bag should be tied and what colours to paint onto the bag, no matter how many times he jumped off the roof he always seemed to fail in his attempts. He did succeed in breaking his arm in two places though. We all thought it was pretty awesome as we got to draw on his plaster cast and this one girl, Sue, thought that Andrew was so cool that they began to hold hands during school. They only held hands at recess though as they were in different classes, but at lunchtime one day we caught them kissing. We threw rocks at them from the safety of the bushes, but Andrew got pretty mad and started chasing after us threatening to kill us with his jedi mind powers.
Now I have never attributed Andrew's failure to fly or his success in kissing Sue to his membership in the Boy Scouts.
What specifically about someone being a freemason invalidates their contribution to science?
. Because they had to create the illusion of gravity to make us believe we're sticking to a spinning ball otherwise without gravity the spinning ball theory doesn't work and to me that makes him a bad person because of lying. How come you never learn about Nikola tesla in schools ? Why just Einstein , Darwin, Newton , because they were all fingers on the same hand maybe? Pushing the illusion upon the masses. All I'm doing is saying what my perspective of the world is and I don't believe it's round!! Sorry if that upsets your ego but everyone is entitled to their own opinion of the reality they see through their own eyes,the same as you are entitled to your opinion :)
-
https://youtu.be/iCVk1ypetmQ
I don't know how much more proof you need
-
Because they had to create the illusion of gravity to make us believe we're sticking to a spinning ball otherwise without gravity the spinning ball theory doesn't work and to me that makes him a bad person because of lying. How come you never learn about Nikola tesla in schools ? Why just Einstein , Darwin, Newton , because they were all fingers on the same hand maybe? Pushing the illusion upon the masses. All I'm doing is saying what my perspective of the world is and I don't believe it's round!! Sorry if that upsets your ego but everyone is entitled to their own opinion of the reality they see through their own eyes,the same as you are entitled to your opinion :)
You claim "Because they had to create the illusion of gravity to make us believe we're sticking to a spinning ball otherwise without gravity the spinning ball theory doesn't work and to me that makes him a bad person because of lying."
You say he was lying just because of a belief you came to 80 or more years after Einstein published his GR works.
Frankly, I look on people like you in disgust! Someone is only lying if they say something they themselves believe is untrue, and I am sure Einstein was quite sincere!
Einstein didn't "invent" gravity, but he certainly believed it was real, so was certainly being honest when he published his work.
Newton's work on gravitation was over 350 years ago, and he did not work alone. Hooke had a lot to do with the experimental work that lead up to his "Law of Universal Gravitation". You might have read where Newton is claimed to have said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants". That was supposedly in a letter to Robert Hooke, and it was Hooke that did a lot of experimental work on pendulum clocks that lead to Newton's Law of Gravitation.
And it has been verified by numerous measurements since that time.
So, what experimental work has been done to support your theories as to what makes thing "fall down" - NONE, I'd venture to say!
You ask "How come you never learn about Nikola tesla in schools". Well, I did learn a bit, though not in any elementary school, but then I didn't learn anything of Newton or Einstein either!
I can't really answer that, but it might just be possible that while his work on ac alternators, motors and transmission was extremely important, the rest of his work, though interesting, did not lead to much of practical value. Do you really believe that if there were practical applications of his later work that it would not have been exploited for tremendous profit! You really do underestimate the greed motive.
Yes, you are going to claim all the usual conspiracies etc. It's funny how FE and conspiracies go hand in hand!
But, I am afraid that you have lost all respect from me with you assertions of lying against anyone who dares go against you pet hypotheses!
I don't suppose you care, but that's the way it is!
-
What so the video with Tim peak in the background in front of a chromakey screen not green screen sorry didn't know I had to be so precise how do you explain That? If he was in space they wouldn't have to fake it with cgi crap would they?
They are not faking anything you muppet, it is a screen they put up (on purpose) to do experiments against, it gives a reference and stops the experiment getting lost against the confusing back ground of a functioning space craft.
see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gNu85JXX2w
-
What so the video with Tim peak in the background in front of a chromakey screen not green screen sorry didn't know I had to be so precise how do you explain That? If he was in space they wouldn't have to fake it with cgi crap would they?
They are not faking anything you muppet, it is a screen they put up (on purpose) to do experiments against, it gives a reference and stops the experiment getting lost against the confusing back ground of a functioning space craft.
see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gNu85JXX2w
They are definitely fake, but that blue PVC pipe thing is the worst reason I've heard to support that reality.
-
They are definitely fake, but that blue PVC pipe thing is the worst reason I've heard to support that reality.
What in gods name are you on about?
-
What so the video with Tim peak in the background in front of a chromakey screen not green screen sorry didn't know I had to be so precise how do you explain That? If he was in space they wouldn't have to fake it with cgi crap would they?
They are not faking anything you muppet, it is a screen they put up (on purpose) to do experiments against, it gives a reference and stops the experiment getting lost against the confusing back ground of a functioning space craft.
see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gNu85JXX2w
https://youtu.be/5e-RnKAN9qY
Ok yes this sure looks so real you stick to your ball views and I will stick to mine
-
https://youtu.be/GFv-1C4pMn4
-
There has been a distinct lack of flat earthers trying to defend the flat earth theory on this forum lately. Are there any out there with evidence for a flat earth that hasn't been recently debunked?
(Intikam doesn't count, obviously)
Because it's not a flat earther's job to defend a theory from arrogant self righteous armchair pseudo-scientists.
Oh, the irony... Pots and kettles, dude. Pots and kettles. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black)
Not everyone can get paid to do this all day.
You haven't been paid yet for your time on this site? Just register here (https://www.reddit.com/r/secretshillsociety). You'll be raking in the dough in no time.
-
So taking mainstream science calculations into account the salt flats of Bolivia are 100 miles in length by about 80 miles in width so take into account the measurements of the earth then at 100 miles the curvature should be as above 6666 feet that's 1.2 miles yet it only drops by 3feet over the whole surface this alone proves we are not a spheroid because the definition of sphere in geometry is " a three dimensional shape that looks like a ball ". "A solid that is bounded by a surface consisting of all points at a given distance from a point constituting it's centre". Basically means no straight lines even at a micro scale of a ball. So if we're on a spinning ball how come we got so much flatness of hundreds of miles just a thought for you ball earthers to ponder over .
No one has ever claimed the earth is a perfect sphere at the micro level. It is approximately a sphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth#Models_of_the_figure_of_the_Earth), but it obviously has many imperfections in the form of mountains, valleys, hills, cliffs, caves, termite mounds, etc. Even a 100 mile long "flat" plain would barely make a dent in the overall surface. The earth is really really big.
Also, I don't know where you got your information about the Bolivian salt flats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salar_de_Uyuni), but you clearly misunderstood your source. The salt flats are "flat" in the sense that the entire thing is at the same altitude. The same elevation above sea level. The same approximate distance from the center of the earth. This is what people mean when they say a plain/ocean/lake is "flat". It isn't actually Euclidian-flat like you are imagining it. I noticed you made the same argument about Kansas. Same thing applies.
The stars rotate above us and return to their same positions year after year and have done so for eternity.
*ahem* no. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star#Historical)
The horizon is always eye level no matter how high you are and that is only possible on a flat plane.
Tell me, how far below eye level do you expect the horizon to be if the earth is round? Give me an exact number based on altitude. No guessing. Use math.
the small sun and moon rotate above us clockwise
The small, close sun and moon have been thorouhly (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5128.0), thoroughly (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5058.0) disproven.
ok then if we are indeed on a ball how come you cannot detect any curvature?
We can. Ships/buildings sink below the horizon bottom first. The bottom cannot be restored with a telescope. Flat earthers claim otherwise, but they have never provided valid evidence to support this claim (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5093.0).
from California to Hawaii it is 2,467 miles. Between the two states there should be a "hump" of 770 miles if we're on a globe!! No hump is possible in water use your eyes that's why it's called sea level not sea curve..
You can see California from Hawaii with your eyes? Hahaahahaaaa... Ok. It is called "sea level" because it is all at the same elevation, altitude, distance from the center of the earth. See above.
Plus where is your sound evidence that were on a ball ?
Aside from the stuff linked to above...
The position of sunrise/sunset on the Equinox. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5030.0)
The rotation of the stars around the South Celestial Pole (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5062.0)
Change in angle of the sun with distance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference)
and much much more...
Honestly, all of this "evidence" that you have has been debunked many times on this site. You just are just parroting the standard set of "evidence" that most flat earth youtube videos repeat over and over again. The people that make these videos are woefully ignorant of basic physics, geometry, and astronomy.
-
https://youtu.be/JPGSF6pxEhQ
-
Plus if we're not a perfect ball then why is every nasa image of earth show a ball? If we're so called oblate or pear shaped why does the earth look like a ball then?(from nasa images) plus in their own description of how the image is clearly not a true image because it's just composites of data put together,not a true image.but amazes me how they get this data to travel millions of miles back to earth lol that is one hell of a connection .
-
Plus if we're not a perfect ball then why is every nasa image of earth show a ball? If we're so called oblate or pear shaped why does the earth look like a ball then?(from nasa images) plus in their own description of how the image is clearly not a true image because it's just composites of data put together,not a true image.but amazes me how they get this data to travel millions of miles back to earth lol that is one hell of a connection .
Do you even attempt to research these things you ask about?
Considering Earth is an oblate spheroid there are two circumferences to deal with.
1. Equatorial = 40,075 kilometers.
2. Meridional (polar) = 40,007 kilometers.
This means that there is a 0.17% difference between the two.
To put this in terms you might understand, go back to your small ball analogy.
A small ball of 2 inches diameter has a circumference of 6.28 inches. Now, imagine that you smash that ball (top to bottom or side to side) by the same percentage as noted above.
You will have flattened your ball by 0.011 inches.
The smallest measurement on an average American SAE tape measure is 1/16 of an inch. 1/16 of an inch is approximately 0.0625 inches or about 5.7 times larger than the amount you've compressed your ball by.
What do you think the odds are that you are going to actually perceive that minute compression on your ball? Why do you think the same should be perceivable in a photo of Earth?
-
https://youtu.be/JPGSF6pxEhQ
Come up with something new!
That video tries to show the route from Bali to Los Angeles as a straight line on a Mercator Projection map.
The shortest distance from Bali to Los Angeles is NOT a straight line on a Mercator Projection map, but a great circle, which does take you close to Alaska.
Aircraft do not always take the shortest route, as other factors such as winds need to be considered, but look at the actual path of a recent China Airways Flight over the same route.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Airline%20Flights/20160722%20-%20Flightaware%20China%20Airlines%208%20Taipei%20to%20Los%20Angeles_zpstakqmmct.png)
China Airlines Flight 8, Taipei to Los Angeles on Flightaware
As you can see the diversion made perfect sense when you look at the flight route, which goes close to Alaska anyway. Certainly, Anchorage is better than Guam or Honolulu.
Now I don't know if Flat Earth Addict is abysmally ignorant or intentionally deceptive, but either way, someone making a video like that has a duty to get his facts right.
So you "wonderfully deceptive" video did not provide any evidence of a flat earth at all! "Try again, Dick Whittington!" as they say in the classics.
Just another of the usual! "I don't understand the Globe, so the earth must be flat." No, it just means that you don't understand the Globe! Go learn a bit about it before you try to shoot it down!
-
https://youtu.be/HOpRaXBsh7I
-
I deleted this post and replaced it by the next - a lot more explanation!
-
I'll redo this and be a bit more explicit.
https://youtu.be/HOpRaXBsh7I (https://youtu.be/HOpRaXBsh7I)
If you accept the Globe you accept gravitation. End of story!
The video starts out boldly proclaiming:
Water ALWAYS Maintains a LEVEL
Water does NOT bend or curve
That is simply not, nor has it ever been a law, no more than the saying
"Water seeks its own level", but that does NOT say that the surface of water is always level, or straight.
There are numerous cases where, because of non-vertical forces being applied to water that the surface is not "straight".
A trivial case is a dew-drop. It is certainly not flat, why?
Simply because there are forces other that gravity acting on it.
In this case the force is "Surface Tension". | | (https://serendipitythirteen.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dew-drop.jpg?w=500) |
There are other forces that can be applied, for example, we could rotate tank of water smoothly, as in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zip9ft1PgV0&feature=youtu.be&t=213
Of course, you will say that the water in that tank is not only subject to the downward acceleration of gravity (or whatever you choose to call it), but to an additional acceleration due its rotation. EXACTLY! The nett acceleration is not in a single direction anymore and the surface aligns itself at right angles to this nett acceleration at each location, as illustrated below:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Rotating%20Water%20Curving_zpsdp5i205v.png)
Rotating Water Curving
Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it simply to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So at the outside edge, the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal.
I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.
There are other examples such as in eddies and whirlpools, where again an acceleration due to rotation is involved.
On the Globe the gravitational acceleration is always directed towards the centre of the earth as in:(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20Curves%20on%20Globe_zpsgmmmyoyv.png)
Water Curves on Globe
Excuse my poor image of the globe.
So the nett force is not towards the centre of the globe, so the water tries to go "down" as far as possible and follows the curve of the earth.
So while it may be true that "Water seeks its own level", that level need not be straight or flat.
-
Real water has curves (paraphrased)
This is pretty well explained. We should start a thread dedicated to keeping track of good explanations of common flat earther misunderstandings. A counter-wiki. I'll start it next week when I have more time if no one beats me to it.
-
Real water has curves (paraphrased)
This is pretty well explained. We should start a thread dedicated to keeping track of good explanations of common flat earther misunderstandings. A counter-wiki. I'll start it next week when I have more time if no one beats me to it.
[/quote
You are going to have a very long list !!!! LOL
IMHO :
(1) This is just another "spoof" website.
(2) "flat earthers" aren't all stupid or ignorant...they are just ill-informed or un-informed.