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 - Rounder

Pages: < Back  1 ... 35 36 [37]
721
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A question for all round earthers
« on: January 30, 2016, 06:41:03 PM »
You already posted this. There is no need to repeat it in another thread.

Disagree.  We don't all read every post, so wherever he posted this comment before, it won't have been seen by everyone reading this thread.  It is relevant here.

722
Flat Earth Community / Re: Antarctica
« on: January 25, 2016, 06:17:10 AM »
Do you have a link to such a model?  I am unable to visualize what you're describing.

723
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Pacific Ocean
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:03:21 PM »
If the train were to suddenly stop at the station while you were in mid-jump, then you would continue moving at 60 mph relative to the ground and the train, so you might collide forcefully with one of the walls.)
I have played with this effect in the z axis.  I spent six years in the US Navy, four of those years on a ship at sea.  In specific sea conditions, my ship would develop a violent up-and-down motion in which the bow would rise, rise, rise as it crested a wave, them suddenly drop like a stone into the trough behind the wave.  Those of us who weren't seasick would play a game.  Just as the ship reached the top of its path, you hop lightly off the deck.  If you timed it right, while you were in the air the ship would drop away from you, and you could find yourself ten feet or more off the deck!  At this point you would grab ahold of the ladder (always pull this stunt at a ladder) and hold on for dear life so the ship doesn't smash into you on its subsequent rise.  The most fun, and challenge, was to take a running jump and if your aim was true you would sail through the open hatch some fifteen feet above and pop out on the next deck when the ship fell past you.  If your aim was NOT true the ship would smack you on the head as it fell.  (We were young and foolhardy)

724
Flat Earth Community / Re: Antarctica
« on: January 24, 2016, 03:00:24 AM »
OK, got it.  Pursuing the hypothetical you suggest, that UA might be able to speed up motion at the rim: would this mean that apparent gravity would feel stronger there?  Or that UA in the Z axis (up-down) has an effect on motion in the X and Y axes (north-south and east/counterclockwise - west/clockwise) that it does not have at more northerly locations on the disc?

725
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy is Too Big
« on: January 24, 2016, 02:49:40 AM »


You forget, Luke, that we are not going to get anywhere with evidence based on spaceflight, spacecraft, satellites, etc.  Flat Earthers believe all spaceflight to be fiction, hoax, Photoshop and CGI.  A live feed from the ISS is no better to them than 'footage' from Pandora or Tatooine.

Any evidence you have that is too strong to come up with a plausible sounding rebuttal for, suddenly becomes fake. Even if the source had previously been used in a different context to support flathead ideas. It's like banging your head against an ice wall.

Incorrect.

Which part is incorrect?  My statement that FE believe spaceflight to be fake, or the more broad statement made by Enlightenmental?  Or are both incorrect?

If my statement is incorrect, and you DO accept spaceflight as real, what do you think of the ISS live feed?

726
Please substantiate the following claims:
  • Steve Jobs was influential.
  • The hypothetical cure can be bought with money.

Seriously?  You need substantiation that Steve Jobs was influential?  Don't half the people you know own an iPhone?
Seriously?  You need substantiation that the hypothetical cure (garlic, in this case) can be bought for money?  Go to Safeway, they sell it by the pound!

727
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Pacific Ocean
« on: January 23, 2016, 08:31:13 PM »
I've heard that gravity is not real and the Earth is just moving up really fast if this is true if you were not touching the Earth at all for even a second you would be moved to a different area as the Earth spins under your feet.

This is not correct, and a simple experiment serves to illustrate it.  The surface of the round earth at sea level on the equator is moving roughly 1000 miles per hour due to rotation.  But so is the air at the surface, give or take some wind, and so are you.  If you jump up into the air, which should meet the definition of "...not touching the Earth at all for even a second..." you have jumped into a volume of air moving at the same speed as the ground you just left, and you yourself have the same 1000 miles per hour speed as the surface you just left.  The end result is that from your frame of reference, everything is moving the same speed and you appear to move straight up and down.  The same result is achieved if you jump (or toss an object in the air) inside a moving vehicle.  As long as your windows are not open and creating a rush of wind from the outside, you will find that no matter your speed, you can toss an object straight up and catch it, instead of having it suddenly fly to the rear of the car as the vehicle moves beneath it.

None of which is relevant to FE vs RE anyway.

728
I've been to the wiki, where under the heading of "Layout of the Continents" there are two very different maps presented:  http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents  The wiki does not take a side, nor does it suggest that these are the only two options.  My question is: does one of these maps (or maybe a third one not shown on the wiki) enjoy the support of MOST of the FE community?  Enough support, so that when you and I talk about "the flat earth map" we can be sure we are talking about the same thing?

729
Flat Earth Community / Re: Antarctica
« on: January 23, 2016, 07:01:36 PM »
We should also remember that there are several maps that include two poles, and that distance is not the only determining factor for how long it takes to complete a journey. It could be that the accelerator for the Earth speeds up motion at the rim, or that rotational forces move faster the further out you are. Jet streams are common knowledge.

I'm new here, can someone tell me what the "accelerator for the Earth" means?

730
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy is Too Big
« on: January 23, 2016, 06:00:10 PM »
How about this?
http://m.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream

You forget, Luke, that we are not going to get anywhere with evidence based on spaceflight, spacecraft, satellites, etc.  Flat Earthers believe all spaceflight to be fiction, hoax, Photoshop and CGI.  A live feed from the ISS is no better to them than 'footage' from Pandora or Tatooine.

731
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
« on: January 21, 2016, 01:56:34 PM »
Here's the mistake that breaks the model, the statement "We can certainly say that the object in orbit feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.)". We can say no such thing.  The force felt by an object in orbit is gravity, and the acceleration produced by that force curves the path of the object exactly enough to close its path around the earth (or other object), diverting it from a straight fly-by path.  One need not perform space flight to test this, which is good for RE proponents since the FE side usually holds that all space flight is a hoax.  No, one need only point an inexpensive telescope, or even a strong pair of binoculars, at the Jupiter system.  Record the positions of the moons night after night.  You will find that they move around Jupiter in a not-straight line, but orbit in a manner consistent with Kepler's Law.  The more ambitious observer can do the same experiment over the course of a year by observing the relative positions of the sun and the easily located planets.  Their apparent movement in the night sky is best explained by the model of round objects whose otherwise straight paths are deflected by the force of gravity.

If this "round objects in round orbits around a round earth" model is wrong, what other explanation covers the fact that astronomers can accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses?  They are using the RE model to do so, and that model works.  They predict the date, time, and not-straight ground path of the moon's shadow upon the earth.  This is published far in advance and then observed by millions of people.  Plenty of opportunity to debu k the RE model, if it were wrong.

732
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy is Too Big
« on: January 21, 2016, 06:30:42 AM »
Rubberbands asked "Are you (Junker) suggesting that pilots and sailors blindly follow their computer navigation systems to get from Point A to Point B and, in the meantime, don't actually have a clue where they are?"  To which Junker replied less than an hour later "That is exactly what I'm suggesting. I'm sure from experience of flying particular routes repeatedly they gain an intrinsic understanding of their bearings. They aren't pulling out maps to chart courses in an airplane."  Perhaps this is true in today's ships and airplanes, where the computer reigns supreme, but in pre-digital days this was not the case.  Early aviators absolutely DID navigate in flight using paper maps, and sailors always have and still do so as a backup if GPS should fail them.  And those maps are/were projections based on an assumption of a round earth.  If the assumption of a round earth were false, then maps based upon that assumption would not be an accurate representation of the world.  They might be navigable in some parts of the world, but they would be worthless in others. 
   In today's world, ships and planes routinely arrive where they are trying to go, and they arrive in the amount of time one expects of a round earth.  Therefore one of the following must be true:
1.  All pilots who fly more than merely local routes, and all mariners who navigate ships across the ocean, they all merely pretend to use RE navigation when in reality they know and use FE navigation, and therefore all of them are a part of the conspiracy to keep FE a secret.
2.  All those people are fools, they think they're navigating a round earth when in fact they've been duped by mapmakers and GPS programmers who pretend their maps represent RE when they actually represent FE, placing all mapmakers in the conspiracy.
3.  None of those people are in the know, they all mistakenly believe RE, the maps are based on RE and are worthless, and my statement about ships and planes routinely arriving at their destinations is false.  They are actually lost at sea in large numbers or making landfall wildly off course due to navigating under false RE assumptions with bogus RE maps.  There must be a massive coverup to hide all these missing ships and planes from the news, which is an even bigger pool of conspirators.
4. None of the above, because maps based on RE assumptions actually get you where you want to go.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 35 36 [37]