8201

Flat Earth Community / Re: Rescuing flat earth with Refraction

« on: July 08, 2017, 05:21:39 PM »

You are assuming that the density of space is zero. You are forgetting that we don't have a real space agency to tell us the density of space.

What are your requirements for a "real space agency", and how could you tell if some agency actually met them?

A simple requirement I have for a space agency is not to build their 6 billion dollar lunar landers with an assortment of junk yard parts held together with tape.

8202

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: July 08, 2017, 05:15:16 PM »

There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.

8203

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?

« on: July 08, 2017, 05:12:35 PM »

Come on, our explanations for those things are easily found in the literature and Wiki.

- During lunar eclipses (which occur2-5 times a year visible from all over the hemisphere) the Earth shadow cast on Moon is round. What shape casts round shadow in all angles? Right - a sphere

This is an ancient greek proof which assumes that the sphere is the earth rather than any other celestial body which orbits the sun.

- Sinking beyond horizon ship. Don't tell me your perspective bullshit. Even no a single vide on YT proving this nonsens, but tens videos prove the opposite.

Look at this photo: and follow the line of the turbines on left. No bending light, no nothing. Just the curvature makes the farthest "touch" water

Look up the chapter "Perspective at Sea" in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

- Seismic waves create P-wave shadow zones during earthquakes which are symmetric and perfectly fits spherical earth, but not  any other shape

http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/graphics/diagrams/Earth/pand%20s%20shadow.png

As we see in your diagram, under the Round Earth model the seismic waves need to mysteriously curve as they travel through the earth to make any sense. The assumption that they are making straight line reflections in a plane is a more plausible explanation.

- Stars moving. How could you explain different directions of stars spinning in northern and southern hemispheres?

There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.

- Moon in southern hemisphere is upside-down. How can it be on a flat earth?

This is explained in the Wiki. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.

Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

All planets are spherical and somehow Earth is magically flat? WTF?

The earth is not a planet. The earth is a plane which bisects the universe and, therefore, fundamentally different.

8204

Flat Earth Community / Re: Rescuing flat earth with Refraction

« on: July 08, 2017, 04:50:08 PM »

You are assuming that the density of space is zero. You are forgetting that we don't have a real space agency to tell us the density of space.

8205

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?

« on: July 08, 2017, 04:45:26 PM »

Alternatively new discoveries and advancements were made to make what was once deemed impossible, now possible.

"Doing the impossible" sounds like the least likely explanation if you ask me.

So airplanes don't exist? Nuclear power plants don't exist? That small device in your pocket doesn't have the processing power it claims to? All of those things were once deemed impossible, all now happen on a regular and daily basis. The impossible becoming the possible is practically a motto for applied sciences and tech for the past few decades. But sure, it happening similarly in this one area, is less likely than thousands of people, over a span of over 4 decades, from 15+ different countries, all lying. To serve what end? That is the million dollar question now then.

The existence of airplanes and smart phones are an empirical truth. Rockets capable of going into orbit are classified military-controlled technologies and do not meet the standard of empirical truth.

This is false. Space X is not a classified military operation. Multiple privet companies have launched independent satellites. Space X has launched multiple space flights and virgin galactic is not so far behind.

Orbital rocket technologies are highly controlled. SpaceX is not independent. It's a government contractor and its employees are under direct government supervision and control for permission to develop/access these technologies. Do you really think the military would let technology which can easily be used as the vehicle for an ICBM be available as public knowledge?

8206

Flat Earth Theory / Re: For the love of all that is holy, read this.

« on: July 08, 2017, 04:09:22 PM »

Alright, as dad as I am concerned, not one flat earther has provided a credible answer to my questions. No one is willing to launch their own balloon. No one will provide proof of this ice wall. No one will provide one shred of proof of a flat earth. And as usual when enough concreat proof has been provided they burry their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

What are you talking about? Your "concrete proof" video was discredited in the second post of this thread.

8207

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?

« on: July 07, 2017, 10:27:31 PM »

Alternatively new discoveries and advancements were made to make what was once deemed impossible, now possible.

"Doing the impossible" sounds like the least likely explanation if you ask me.

So airplanes don't exist? Nuclear power plants don't exist? That small device in your pocket doesn't have the processing power it claims to? All of those things were once deemed impossible, all now happen on a regular and daily basis. The impossible becoming the possible is practically a motto for applied sciences and tech for the past few decades. But sure, it happening similarly in this one area, is less likely than thousands of people, over a span of over 4 decades, from 15+ different countries, all lying. To serve what end? That is the million dollar question now then.

The existence of airplanes and smart phones are an empirical truth. Rockets capable of going into orbit are classified military-controlled technologies and do not meet the standard of empirical truth.

8208

Flat Earth Theory / Re: All planets are circular.

« on: July 07, 2017, 08:18:23 PM »

No one was talking about William Carpenter. Why are you trying to use the words that one man said to discredit the words that another man said?

I did not, and I unless presented with evidence to the contrary, would presume Chip made an honest mistake in who the quote was attributed to. The Wikipedia page is unfortunately not 100% clear that the quote is not actually from Mr. Rowbotham. Fairly easy mistake to make when looking at the page.

It says fairly clearly on the first sentence of that page that the work is attributed to William Carpenter. William Carpenter is not Samuel Birley Rowbotham. I don't know what you want from me.

8209

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?

« on: July 07, 2017, 08:12:09 PM »

Alternatively new discoveries and advancements were made to make what was once deemed impossible, now possible.

"Doing the impossible" sounds like the least likely explanation if you ask me.

8210

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?

« on: July 07, 2017, 04:50:51 PM »

The motive is explained in the Wiki.

8211

Flat Earth Theory / Re: All planets are circular.

« on: July 07, 2017, 04:35:10 PM »

The human eye at night sees planets in our solar system as round, sphere like object, we can all agree on. How is this planet we live on any different and why?

The earth is not a planet.

Are you willing to back that up with any proof?

Yes. See: Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Here's a quote from Mr. Rowbotham, "There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."

Cairo, Egypt, at the mouth of the Nile has an elevation 75 ft above sea level. Khartoum, Sudan, also directly on the Nile is 1000 miles south has an elevation 1247 ft. About halfway between them is the Nile city of Aswan, Egypt, elevation 646 ft. The modern theodolite (a surveying tool) was invented in 1787, 29 years before Rowbotham's birth. He has no excuse for the inaccuracy of his statement. This gross error in his understanding of such simple geography absolutely disqualifies him from any serious participation in a discussion of the shape of the planet.

Sources: Google and Wikipedia.

Show me where he said that.

He is incorrect in who the quote is from, but it WAS from someone influence by Rowbatham's work. It's from "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe" which you helpfully have on your wiki. The noted statement is point number 4 as seen on this page. https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe Published in 1885, 100 years past the invention of the theodolite. William born in 1830, ~40 years after it's invention.

No one was talking about William Carpenter. Why are you trying to use the words that one man said to discredit the words that another man said?

8212

Flat Earth Theory / Re: For the love of all that is holy, read this.

« on: July 07, 2017, 12:49:35 PM »

Why would you be able to see where it is night?

Because of the time? Lol

I guess I don't understand your question. A round earth won't obscure your ability to see the horizon line, you can see this line from a 747 on a trans Atlantic flight. More to that point at that altitude you can see a slight curvature to the earth too.

Lack of light tends to obscure visibility.

8213

Flat Earth Theory / Re: For the love of all that is holy, read this.

« on: July 07, 2017, 03:45:36 AM »

Another good argument is that, no matter where the balloon in launched from it always appears to be in the center,

What???

This has made my day, I'm off to work...

Sorry,

I should qualify this statement by asking why doesn't that above principal apply with a flat earth model.
Just stand still and do a 360 degree turn on the spot and tell me its because you are on a round earth that this is possible, are you not now the centre of all you survey?

Upon reaching the upper atmosphere's, where your vision allows you to see further, you should be able to begin to see the edges. A ballon launched in Australia should not see the world extend out beneath them equally in all directions on a flat Earth. Because the view would look past the 'ice wall' into nothingness. Actually now I'm curious what one launched from the Antarctic would see, if it's been done. Because it should see a long wall of ice curving off into the distance all along one side, would it not?

Why would you be able to see where it is night?

8214

Flat Earth Theory / Re: All planets are circular.

« on: July 07, 2017, 03:41:47 AM »

The human eye at night sees planets in our solar system as round, sphere like object, we can all agree on. How is this planet we live on any different and why?

The earth is not a planet.

Are you willing to back that up with any proof?

Yes. See: Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Here's a quote from Mr. Rowbotham, "There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."

Cairo, Egypt, at the mouth of the Nile has an elevation 75 ft above sea level. Khartoum, Sudan, also directly on the Nile is 1000 miles south has an elevation 1247 ft. About halfway between them is the Nile city of Aswan, Egypt, elevation 646 ft. The modern theodolite (a surveying tool) was invented in 1787, 29 years before Rowbotham's birth. He has no excuse for the inaccuracy of his statement. This gross error in his understanding of such simple geography absolutely disqualifies him from any serious participation in a discussion of the shape of the planet.

Sources: Google and Wikipedia.

Show me where he said that.

8215

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see across?

« on: July 05, 2017, 12:54:43 AM »

I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?

The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.

It is the position of NOAA that the planet is not flat based on their observations.  If you are going to call them credible and site their information to try and explain why we can't see things we should be able to see if the earth was flat, how can you then discredit all of the other information provided by NOAA that indicates the earth is definitely not flat?

What information would that be? The satellite mentioned above is a satellite NASA put up to collect information for the NOAA.

Are you serious?  There is endless information proving the earth is not flat.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/earth-round.html

The real question, that you dodged entirely, which isn't a surprise at all, is how can you site data from NOAA as an argument about atmospheric interference, but dismiss all of the other information that clearly shows the earth is not flat?

I'm not ignoring any data from NOAA. They may test the atmosphere under a round earth interpretation, but those same tests can be interpreted under a flat earth interpretation. If you can show us some independent research they have performed which suggests that the earth is a globe feel free to post it.

8216

Flat Earth Theory / Re: All planets are circular.

« on: July 04, 2017, 05:44:39 PM »

There is evidence in Earth Not a Globe. Read it.

That is not evidence.  That is pseudoscience or just plain false.

Show your work

8217

Flat Earth Theory / Re: All planets are circular.

« on: July 04, 2017, 05:11:36 PM »

There is evidence in Earth Not a Globe. Read it.

8218

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see across?

« on: July 04, 2017, 04:54:22 PM »

I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?

The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.

It is the position of NOAA that the planet is not flat based on their observations.  If you are going to call them credible and site their information to try and explain why we can't see things we should be able to see if the earth was flat, how can you then discredit all of the other information provided by NOAA that indicates the earth is definitely not flat?

What information would that be? The satellite mentioned above is a satellite NASA put up to collect information for the NOAA.

8219

Flat Earth Theory / Re: For the love of all that is holy, read this.

« on: July 04, 2017, 04:46:42 PM »

The video you posted is using a wide angle lens, the curvature of the earth changes depending on where the camera is looking in the scene.

8220

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see across?

« on: June 30, 2017, 10:05:16 PM »

I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?

The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.

I also don't have a reason to doubt their studies. But does zeteticism only mean questioning NASA and no other organizations? If I could show that NOAA had cgid some photographs would you then reject their studies that show the height of the atmosphere is 62 miles?

Sure, if you show that an organization is untrustworthy, that is reason to question their claims.

Did you see Glenlivet's post?

The Sex in the clouds picture? Seen it.

http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/space/finding-sex-on-nasas-epic-earth-image-once-you-see-it-you-wont-unsee-it/