3801

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Math, and what you should see, shall the Earth be round

« on: March 30, 2018, 05:40:36 PM »

Dr Rowbotham proved that the earth is a flat plane with the Bedford level experiment. He also explained why ships hulls disappear before the mast.

Agreed.

It's funny actually, round d earth heretics say that the ship's hull disappearing 'proves' that earth is flat, but look through binoculars, like you've said and... there is the hull. If earth was round and you looked through binoculars, you wouldn't be able to see the hull.

Nah.

3802

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Moon Landing.

« on: March 29, 2018, 03:49:21 PM »

I'm not sure what "the flag was fake" actually means.
Although, if it helps, the flat had a rigid pole along the top, otherwise in the vacuum on the moon it would have just hung limply which would have not been very impressive in photos.
It flaps as they're screwing it into the surface.

If you want to learn more about it all then read "Man on the Moon" by Andrew Chaikin.

3803

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 29, 2018, 03:16:19 PM »

I see Parallax has descended into the "I don't understand something, therefore it can't be true" line of reasoning.
Which isn't a very sound line of reasoning.

3804

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat weather

« on: March 29, 2018, 01:58:22 PM »

The bigger problem is that were the earth flat, what is keeping the atmosphere on top of it? Why doesn't it just leak off into space?
The solutions to that are a physical dome (some flat earth models claim that) or an infinite plane (ridiculous, but some models claim that too).
The actual explanation given is some nonsense about temperature gradients or something but the in real life the high pressure over the earth would quickly leak out towards the low pressure and over the edges into space.

3805

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Popularity

« on: March 29, 2018, 09:13:51 AM »

I do think it's a sad reflection on the "post truth" world we now seem to live in.
There are others.
Brexit
Trump's presidency.
We live in somewhat troubling times where it doesn't seem to matter to people what is true any more.
I don't think it will gain mainstream acceptance because it is so demonstrably false.
A lot of the publicity is just that - publicity, it's people shaking their heads in bemusement that anyone in the 21st century would believe it.
They are not winning the argument because it is unwinnable.
No-one in the scientific community takes it seriously so I don't think it will hinder progress.
It is a slightly worrying indication of people's ability to think rationally and logically though.

3806

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeing the Edge of the Earth

« on: March 29, 2018, 09:00:40 AM »

Hate to admit it but I'm with Tom on this one.
It is pretty unlikely on a flat earth you'd be able to see thousands of miles.

3807

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 29, 2018, 08:55:19 AM »

However, I find it difficult to believe that we are kept on a ball by gravity.

OK. Well luckily, it isn't a matter of belief. It's something we can test:



Gravity is, relatively speaking, a weak force. If you think about it, every time you use a magnet to lift a paperclip a small magnet is overcoming the gravity of the entire planet pulling down on it.
BUT, the earth is really, really big. And that's what generates enough force to stop us falling off.

And as Scroogie says, there is loads of evidence that gravity pulls things into a ball. I'll let you do your own research about that.

3808

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Trying to Understand FE

« on: March 29, 2018, 08:47:27 AM »

Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.

As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.

3809

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 29, 2018, 08:07:41 AM »

Not really trolling, it's a sincere question. And I'm not the first to pose it, there's lots of flat earth scholars that have questioned it too.

I'd suggest that if they are questioning it then calling them "scholars" is kind, to say the least.
As I've explained, "Up" and "Down" are like "Left" and "Right", they are relative to your frame of reference.
To you, Australians might seem upside down, but to them YOU seem upside down.
For both of you "down" is "towards the centre of the earth and that is what the force of gravity is pulling you towards.
That's what keeps you and the Sydney Opera House on the ground.

3810

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 28, 2018, 10:51:39 PM »

This one can't be anything other than a troll. There's no way.

Agreed. I think I'm done here.

3811

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 28, 2018, 10:49:49 PM »

I have not been to many magic shows which have a disclaimer "Everything you are about to see is fake" before the show starts. The audience is led to believe that something physically impossible happened. At no point are we told "it was all fake." It is an entire industry based on lies.

Yes. And as I said I've never been to the cinema or theatre and before the film or play seen a disclaimer.
"Everything you are about to see is fake. The people are only acting".
Did you come out of Jurassic Park thinking "Shit! Dinosaurs are alive again! Run for the hills!"?
Do you think that if you fit a Flux Capacitor to a DeLorean and drive at 88mph you can go back in time and meet Rowbotham?
I suspect not. You know that films and plays are fictional.
You know, I hope, that magic shows are too. They are called magic TRICKS. There is a clue in the name.

Why is it okay to lie to children?

Ever heard of Santa Claus? I don't know how to break this to you, Tom...
Kids have a sense of wonder and imagination, they probably do believe magic tricks are real like they believe Santa comes down their chimney every 25th December and brings them presents. At some point they grow up and start to learn how the world really works but it is nice, till a certain age, to let children retain some wonder at things.

Since lies and deception are perfectly okay in your book - where is the line between good lie and bad lie? They are all just magicians with different backstories. What makes a magical backstory acceptable and unacceptable?

Most stage magicians don't have a "back story". Very few make claims to have actual "powers". Anyone who does should be treated with suspicion.
Especially if they are claiming to use their "powers" to exploit the gullible and vulnerable rather than just to entertain.

3812

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: March 28, 2018, 10:32:38 PM »

You seem to do this in every thread.

Well no, I don't.
And if you look back I did join in with the actual debate at the time. It was only someone else reviewing the thread which prompted me to.
All you did was deny, deny, deny.
First you tried to claim that the pylons don't exist at all.
Then, when it was conclusively shown that they do you just said words to the effect of
"Yeah? Well...it's fake anyway. So there!"

And that was the end of your contribution to the debate. You guys claim to be interested in empirical evidence but when you're shown some you just shout "FAKE!" at it which is pretty lazy and can be used to "prove" yourself right about anything.

3813

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 28, 2018, 10:27:54 PM »

Of course. What I am saying is that as they are underneath the ball, they are upside down. You still haven't answered my original question.

From your point of view they are upside down.
From their point of view YOU are upside down.
Because Up and Down are relative to your frame of reference. Like left and right.

3814

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 28, 2018, 10:26:08 PM »

I'm not. If they are underneath the ball, they are pointing downwards. So logically if they build something upwards it is, in fact, being built downwards. I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend

Dude. Come on!
The force of gravity is acting towards the centre of the globe earth. There is no "up" or "down" on a globe other than from your frame of reference.
You are standing on earth, the sky is above you so that is "up", you dig a hole beneath you so that is "down".
The notion that north is thought of as "up" and the south is "down" is just convention.
Someone in the southern hemisphere is held to the ground the same way you are.
If what you're saying were how things worked then only people in or near the North Pole would stay on, everyone else would be clinging on for dear life.

3815

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Moon Landing.

« on: March 28, 2018, 05:52:35 PM »

So it's acceptable to believe that they could stick man on the moon but not fake an image of the earth? And I use 'CGI' loosely, its 'CGI' in its most primitive form.

Ha. Ok, I’ll give you that.
But your earlier point, I don’t think YouTube is brilliant evidence, there’s a kinds of crazy stuff on there.
Which doesn’t mean everything on there is crazy, but you can find crazy stuff to back up any viewpoint on there.
The question is could they have faked it to the satisfaction of the Russians who never called the US out on faking it and kept the thousands of people involved in it all quiet. Can you imagine how many people would have had to be involved?

The moon landings are one of the best documented events in history. A few vague theories about flags waving or shadow angles from conspiracy theorists isn’t going to cut it. Read “Man On The Moon” by Andrew Chaikin and tell me that level of detail could be faked.

3816

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 28, 2018, 05:38:13 PM »

Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.

If he “proved” the theory correct then I’d have heard of him before I joined his place.
And his “proofs” wouldn’t make anyone who knows a bit of science laugh out loud.
Most of his “proofs” are him just claiming stuff, none of it is backed up.

3817

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Moon Landing.

« on: March 28, 2018, 05:31:18 PM »

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

CGI in the late 1960s? Really?

3818

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: March 28, 2018, 01:01:26 PM »

Yes. All quite amusing.

BabyThork wades in claiming that the whole video is a hoax and the power lines aren't even there.
Then when he is shown that they clearly are he just signs off with
"It doesn't matter anyway. The video is a hoax." and we don't hear any more from in in the thread.

Meanwhile Tom considers the matter case closed, backing up Thork.
Then claims the curve is too big to be credible.
Then refuses to bother to try and understand the concept of forced perspective and then just says

"Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly."

Bit more back and forth and then Tom says:

"Show us something that looks like things are actually curving away, like the images in the op, but taken by someone else."

Someone then shows him exactly that which does show a more subtle but discernible curve and he never responds.

So another win for FE then!

3819

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Law of Perspective - Distance to Horizon

« on: March 28, 2018, 12:20:29 PM »

There are many accounts in the Flat Earth literature of telescopes restoring half sunken ships across calm bodies of water, showing that they are not really behind a "hill of water".

Such cases are not disputable there (in Flat Earth literature), but here (in reality).
Interesting how this good zoom expanded the ship horizontally all the way to wider than the whole view, and still couldn't bring back the part behind the horizon:



Waves?
What could conveniently stop them from spreading towards us to see them?
Mechanical characteristics of the water surface remains the same all the way.

It's interesting that they pretend to care only about empirical measurements and yet just read "accounts" from old books and regard that as good enough.
Meanwhile, the countless photos and videos showing ships sinking beneath the waves or buildings occluded by the curve of the earth are dismissed by "waves".
Although interestingly, waves are never an issue in the "Bishop Experiment" where Tom claims to be able to see a distant beach across a bay at any time and in different atmospheric conditions.

3820

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Flat Earth model explains twilight?

« on: March 28, 2018, 11:41:22 AM »

That is the question of how the sun, a spotlight shining predominantly downward, manages to illuminate the moon. Is the sun equipped with a second very narrow spotlight constantly focused on the moon? Is there a narrow 360 degree (azimuthal) component of its radiation whose elevation serendipitously happens to correspond to the elevation of the moon?

Actually, they do have an answer to this which I finally saw Tom post recently. I thought that their idea was that the sun is a spotlight but actually they don't think that.
They (well, Tom - FE views do vary) believe that the sun shines in all directions so it does illuminate the moon.
But then why, I hear you ask, doesn't it shine over the whole flat earth?
Perspective.
Stop laughing, that's really their answer. The sun "sets" because of perspective.
Obviously in real life this is, I believe the technical term is "horseshit". That's not how perspective works at all. But that is their answer.