-
Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that the earth is flat. But I think that the discussions are both interesting and challenges your thinking :-)
I want to ask some of the flat earth believers if there's ANYTHING that could convince you that the earth is not flat? E.g. if you were invited into space to look for yourself or whatever. What would be 'the ultimate proof' for you that the earth is, in fact, not flat?
-
Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that the earth is flat. But I think that the discussions are both interesting and challenges your thinking :-)
I want to ask some of the flat earth believers if there's ANYTHING that could convince you that the earth is not flat? E.g. if you were invited into space to look for yourself or whatever. What would be 'the ultimate proof' for you that the earth is, in fact, not flat?
Bear in mind that all of us at one stage were brought up to accept one model. The Globe and all the flannel that goes with it.
The mere fact that people are viewing alternative Earth theories is due to the fact that they see too much ridiculousness with the model they were forced to adhere to.
Having said that, I'll answer your question.
If I can watch astronauts walk to the rocket and be seen to enter it with no way out, then to lift off high into the sky, then I'll revert back to believing everything about a globe and all the trimmings.
I would need to be able to do this by viewing from a real telescope in real time and as close as humanly possible.
I would also need to inspect the rocket on the launch pad before lift off just to make sure there is no escape and to verify that the rocket is actually real.
I'd say my chances were zero but I'm sure there will be a few that will tell me I would be allowed to do all this due to them suddenly turning into NASA security and all that. :P
-
Hi again!
Thanks for your reply!
I can see that the 'RE theory' would be a 'hard sell' to you! :-D
But for real; I'm not sure that it would even be a 'proof' that the Earth is round. I assume that if your really succeeded in watching the rocket and you posted your observations here on this site, we would just have all the other Flat Earth believers saying that your were just paid to say so and that you're a part of the hoax etc, etc. (I assume that since you don't believe in testimonies from other space travelers, you can't expect other people to believe in your testimonies).
Currently about 540 people is said to have been space (from 40 different countries). I've personally talked to two (the Dane and the Swede). Is there a chance that you would trust any of these 540 peoples testimonies? Or could you think of a more 'objective' proof you would accept?
Cheers
-
The thing is, even assuming people have been to space and it's not a whole big hoax, we've seen evidence from NASA itself that the moon is actually flat. We've seen evidence of the same about Mars as well. Since they look spherical from here, it is only reasonable to conclude that large objects appear spherical from far away due to the presence of the medium (the aether) between the observer and the object. I believe that expeditions to space have proven that the Earth is flat, but the data has continually been misinterpreted thanks to the overarching bias that the Earth is round, which like many lies throughout history can be ultimately attributed to the insidious influence of the Catholic Church.
-
Hi again!
Thanks for your reply!
I can see that the 'RE theory' would be a 'hard sell' to you! :-D
But for real; I'm not sure that it would even be a 'proof' that the Earth is round. I assume that if your really succeeded in watching the rocket and you posted your observations here on this site, we would just have all the other Flat Earth believers saying that your were just paid to say so and that you're a part of the hoax etc, etc. (I assume that since you don't believe in testimonies from other space travelers, you can't expect other people to believe in your testimonies).
Currently about 540 people is said to have been space (from 40 different countries). I've personally talked to two (the Dane and the Swede). Is there a chance that you would trust any of these 540 peoples testimonies? Or could you think of a more 'objective' proof you would accept?
Cheers
I've talked to many people that come across as so genuine that you simply have to believe them.
They answer relevant questions and give off an aura of respectability.
Guess what?...they turned out to be extremely good bull crap artists. Excellent poker faced liars.
But then there's the less than convincing crew who simply reek of lies and stories. They usually display body give away's as well as vocal inconsistencies, in tone and quality of words.
Neil Armstrong was one person carrying enormous guilt. Serious guilt and I believe he tried his best to relay some truth's and cryptic messages to switched on people, as his way of clearing his conscience before his passing.
I don't expect anyone to believe what I say. What I say is what I believe. It's up to each individual to go looking for the truth and up to each individual to choose who to trust or at least take snippets from.
The OP asked for my ultimate proof. I suppose the ultimate proof would be going into space and looking back at a spinning marble looking ball. This would require me to board a rocket to do this.
Seeing as that's not going to happen, then I'll make it easier on those people who supposedly push the space carry on and take a proof by what I said previously.
-
Hi again!
Again - thanks for your reply!
As I said, I really like these discussions. They're interesting and challenges your thinking. I think you guys have a lot to offer in the 'free thinking' and reasoning, so I think it's a shame when you're so fast pull the ad hominem arguments. You will probably loose a lot of people in the discussions.
I think it's a tough requirement you have for 'the ultimate proof'. It will make the discussions less interesting, you see. You're basically saying that no matter what experiment, arguement, etc we're put on the table, you'll only be convinced if you flew up in a rocket to see for yourself. That's not being very open minded or freethinking, I think. Is there a chance you could be satisfied with less?
Cheers
-
Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that the earth is flat. But I think that the discussions are both interesting and challenges your thinking :-)
I want to ask some of the flat earth believers if there's ANYTHING that could convince you that the earth is not flat? E.g. if you were invited into space to look for yourself or whatever. What would be 'the ultimate proof' for you that the earth is, in fact, not flat?
Let's just start with a video (that isn't taken with a fish-eye lens) or a picture (that hasn't been photoshopped) that even shows curvature on the earth, let alone proving it...
-
YouTube videos are good, and there must be one on the internet (on YouTube of course :-D). I don't know, so somebody must help me here. However, I guess that YouTube videoes can be manipulated any way you want? I was more thinking of arguments like "why does 'gravity' vary across the surface of the Earth, if the Earth is flat and moving in the same direction (up)"?
-
Hi again!
Again - thanks for your reply!
As I said, I really like these discussions. They're interesting and challenges your thinking. I think you guys have a lot to offer in the 'free thinking' and reasoning, so I think it's a shame when you're so fast pull the ad hominem arguments. You will probably loose a lot of people in the discussions.
I think it's a tough requirement you have for 'the ultimate proof'. It will make the discussions less interesting, you see. You're basically saying that no matter what experiment, arguement, etc we're put on the table, you'll only be convinced if you flew up in a rocket to see for yourself. That's not being very open minded or freethinking, I think. Is there a chance you could be satisfied with less?
Cheers
Ok, to be shown how a small rocket works inside the supposed huge vacuum chamber at NASA. the one that the myth busters apparently used.
Under my direction only.
If the small rocket shoots off like it would in atmosphere than I'd happily concede that we are being told the truth about the Earth and space.
If this is still being too strict then what's the basic minimum that you think I should accept in terms of a proof?
-
I still think it's difficult to use as a general 'proof', if it would only convince you and not the whole Flat Earth community. They could rightfully argue, that you had been bribed to tell a different story.
Also; I don't know enough about 'rocket sciences' to say if it's a valid argument to proof that NASA have been to the Moon and so on.
-
Actually; I can't even believe that we're having this debte! It's a small world and we have so much technology that it would be relatively simple to tell if we're on a globe or a flat Earth.
If you fly over 'the edge' and take som good photos, then you'll have me convinced :-D
-
Actually; I can't even believe that we're having this debte! It's a small world and we have so much technology that it would be relatively simple to tell if we're on a globe or a flat Earth.
If you fly over 'the edge' and take some good photos, then you'll have me convinced :-D
If there's so much technology to tell if we're on a globe then why do we have to put up with stitched pictures of a supposed Earth from space and why are fish eye lenses always used.
Why don't they just use this technology to show the people the reality without beating about the bush?
You see, you're asking for proof of flying over some edge Earth and I don't subscribe to that. You need to find those that believe in a disc that you can fall off of. I don't know anyone that subscribes to this.
I suppose the only proof we both have or will likely get is the proof of our own logical minds and to just follow that.
I'm fine with you adhering to the globe. I did at one time and now I'm 100% certain in my mind that it's anything but a rotating globe,, but that's just my thoughts.
-
If you fly over 'the edge' and take som good photos, then you'll have me convinced :-D
What would make you so sure that if the Earth is flat it must have an edge? As you rightly point out, no edge has ever been observed, and it would be unzetetic to the extreme to assume the existence of one despite a complete lack of evidence (hell, it would even be unscientific... not that I put much stock in what's scientific).
-
@Sceptimatic:
I was actually thinking of 'believers' from both sides. The Flat Earthers should also, in a relative simple way, be able to 'proof' the existence of a flat Earth. Senses can so easily be tricked ("at night I can't see my neighbors cat, hence; the cat only exist in daylight"), so don't you agree that we should find evidence beyond our senses?
What I like about you guys (Flat Earthers) and the reason why I spend time on this site is your open minds and free thinking. Don't disappoint saying that you're 100% sure about anything! ;-) Being really free thinking, you should also be able to ultimately accept that the Earth is a globe, if the thinking and evidence points that way. Or what?
@Roundy:
I was left with the impression after reading your Q&A (http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#What_does_the_earth_look_like.3F_How_is_circumnavigation_possible.3F) that that was the model that was currently accepted by the society. Somewhere I even read that it was believet that the edge was guarded by government. Maybe I didn't do my homework properly. I'll catch up. But edge or no edge; there must be some unexplored land that need to be explored?
@Both:
Thanks for the discussion!
-
@Roundy:
I was left with the impression after reading your Q&A (http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#What_does_the_earth_look_like.3F_How_is_circumnavigation_possible.3F) that that was the model that was currently accepted by the society. Somewhere I even read that it was believet that the edge was guarded by government. Maybe I didn't do my homework properly. I'll catch up. But edge or no edge; there must be some unexplored land that need to be explored?
You didn't hear it from me, but our FAQ sucks. It is outdated and badly in need of a tune-up. I'm not sure the notion that the edge is guarded by the government was ever anything more than a joke. I don't think anybody really takes it seriously.
Rowbotham really put it best in his seminal work Earth Not a Globe:
How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.
-
The FAQ makes no mention of a guarded Ice Wall. The use of the word "edge" there is a miswording at best - the edge of the known Earth is the Ice Wall. What's beyond it remains unknown.
-
I've now read a bit up on your site. Let me just summarize:
You don't believe that the Earth is a globe - It's all conspiracy
You don't believe that anybody ever traveled to space - It's all conspiracy
You don't believe that anybody ever climbed the Mt Everst - It's all conspiracy
You don't believe that anybody ever crossed the South Pole - It's all conspiracy
-And you believe that the lies have been orchestrated in generations and over 100 of years, involving millions of stakeholders from a vast amount of different countries with different interests and agendas - just to .. yes... just to what? Who would gain from a globe shaped Earth instead of a flat?
Do FES have any official Chairperson or Spokesperson with real names, living in the real life? I suspect the FES to be no more than a sociological experiment made by government. If you can convince the people that the Earth is flat, you can convince them anything. Remember you heard it from me the first time ;-)
-
Let's imagine the earth is flat, and everything revolves around the earth....AND the world we know of is surrounded by Antarctica..The thought that the human race might be a social experiment, isn't very far away in my mind at least. Hearing stuff like the moon looks like a hologram of some sort, 3 days before full moon, private people see a giant wave. It all just adds up pretty well, why the governments and media refuse to touch on UFO's and such. The world would collapse and the "game" would be over. It would be a great reason to keep the public believing the earth is round and we are simply a mere quiescence of some big bang, rather than the actual center of the world, and probably surrounded by Antarctica.
Source:
http://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/26/star-trails-prove-earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe/
-
Interesting. By the way, why can’t we see Polaris from the Southern hemisphere? I guess it’s because it’s very close to the horizon? But then, how is it possible to see nice circular star trails in the sky in the Southern hemisphere too (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-VWJHRN7cw)? Oh, and did you notice how the star trails filmed in the North hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise, while star trails filmed in the South hemisphere rotate clockwise? I’m confused, shouldn’t the stars rotate in the same direction no matter were you are on the flat Earth?
-
I am new here and i am 50% flatearther 50% round earther... i am currently doing my own research... Could one not just go to the Atlantic ocean set up a high powered telescope and look toward Africa? or Pacific ocean towards Hawaii?
-
Interesting question giuseppepittsburgh. You would probably have problems looking through that many km of atmosphere. You would probably also have problems seeing Africa because of the Earths curvature.
However, I would really like undercoverfugl to answer my question from the last post before we get to the next, if you don't mind.
-
Of course sorry..
-
@Roundy: the moon and Mars are flat also? I've never heard of that before, not even from other FE'ers. Could you provide some more details about that?
-
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&list=PLcjQVpaEjyM3gxnx7DZ8fS7nRES0icKyP&index=1
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
-
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&list=PLcjQVpaEjyM3gxnx7DZ8fS7nRES0icKyP&index=1
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
Did you actually watch 2 hours boring line-up of undocumented fantasies and now you think the Earth is flat? Did you also watch Spiderman and believed in that too?
Anyway; if you find joy and comfort in you new fantasy world, I think you should just keep on believing. That's also for the rest of you 'Flat Earthers'.
-
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&list=PLcjQVpaEjyM3gxnx7DZ8fS7nRES0icKyP&index=1
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
Did you actually watch 2 hours boring line-up of undocumented fantasies and now you think the Earth is flat? Did you also watch Spiderman and believed in that too?
Anyway; if you find joy and comfort in you new fantasy world, I think you should
just keep on believing. That's also for the rest of you 'Flat Earthers'.
The complete lack of rebuttal has intrigued me,
Off to watch the vid.
-
Thanks for the video Rdrums,
hugely interesting.
Rather than "undocumented fantasies" I found it's use of documented history and facts to support it's hypothesis refreshing.
Nicely done.
-
Thanks for the video Rdrums,
hugely interesting.
Rather than "undocumented fantasies" I found it's use of documented history and facts to support it's hypothesis refreshing.
Nicely done.
That's a twist, I didn't pick you for one of the reptile people.
The snow globe theory postulates that aliens built the dome, and the theory Mark Sargent is pushing is that it's like a global Truman Show, with the reptiles in charge.
I find Mark Sargent's style and presentation the best and most convincing of the flat earth youtube brigade, I don't know why it's presented under a Jeranism lead in? Is he scamming again?
-
just to .. yes... just to what? Who would gain from a globe shaped Earth instead of a flat?
First I will address the "millions" statement. That is your number. You feel that millions would have to "in on it". I personally believe it would be in the thousands, not millions.
Now for the why and what's the purpose. Well let me ask you something...
What's the purpose for telling a child about a magical fat guy in a red suit that travels about the world distributing gifts to "good" kids?
What's the purpose of telling a child about a magical fairy that comes in the night and takes your tooth and leaves a quarter.
What's the purpose of telling a child about a magical bunny that leaves you candy and chocolates in a plastic basket bought from Wal-Mart?
So we are willing to lie to our own children. For what?
If we are so easily willing to lie to our children then we can easily lie to each other as adults.
Where do the lies start and end?
If NASA faked one, they faked them all.
If one astronaut lied, they all lied.
If one news report was faked and staged, they all are.
If one politician lies, they all do.
Do you have a lie radar?
Would you have gone on believing in Santa if no one ever told you differently?
Again I ask, where do the lies end and begin? The elitists of our world did not get there by being honest.
And don't forget, this is an open forum that anyone can join. This isn't a society or a governed body. You're here and didn't sign a membership. Neither did we.
And not all information in the FAQ's or any website is the consensus among the entire FE community.
Just like the mass media, lies and misdirection are injected into the discussion. It's no different here.
So here is my why.... there are billions of us and only a few thousand of them. If we knew the real truths and we all woke up to how we are truly slaves then we would kill them, then kill each other.
FE and truth isn't for everyone. Knowledge is power and we all can't be powerful. Someone has to work right?
Be good or Santa won't come visit you....
Start there and you will begin to understand the "why".
-
Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that the earth is flat. But I think that the discussions are both interesting and challenges your thinking :-)
I want to ask some of the flat earth believers if there's ANYTHING that could convince you that the earth is not flat? E.g. if you were invited into space to look for yourself or whatever. What would be 'the ultimate proof' for you that the earth is, in fact, not flat?
Prove to me that standing bodies of water are flat with actual quantifiable data then I'll believe that the earth is flat
-
Prove to me that standing bodies of water are flat with actual quantifiable data then I'll believe that the earth is flat
Hello. Please see the Bedford Level experiment by Samuel Rowbotham for the evidence you seek. Welcome to the group of flat earth believers :)
-
I suspect that in the next two years we will find out for certain if the earth is indeed flat or round. With the advent of more companies joining the space race, companies like Space X, which are helping to reduce the cost of space travel with reusable stage 1 rocket boosters, it will be within our lifetime before we are able to experience the lack of gravity of space, as well as the curve or lack of the curve when we gaze back at the earth with our naked eyes.
I say naked eyes because there is always the chance that someone is using a fisheye or wide angled lens, and always the chance that the earth is either a projection or a computer simulation.
I heard someone wants to see what a rocket looks like in the vacuum of space. So below is the link to one of the space X launches of recent days.
http://youtu.be/csVpa25iqH0
-
I suspect that in the next two years
Nope...
My mother, 30 years ago paid for a reservation for a space filght. Never happened...
Now 30 years later, after being promised yet again by Virgin we would get to enjoy space travel, guess what?
NOTHING!
Ship blew up... how convenient...
Now months later, NASA says:
"since your spaceship blew up, we'd like to give you contracts to ship things into space. Even though you clearly cannot get humans into space, nor an aircraft,... here take millions of dollars worth of our stuff into space. The tax payers will not mind if it blows up."
I paraphrased just a tad...
2 years from now you will still be waiting. 30 years from now it will be outlawed because of a supposed explosion killing all passengers...
This isn't even a good story. I can think of much better tales while sitting on the crapper...
Link all the videos you want. It's fake. Aint never happened and ain't never gonna happen.
See ya in 2 years! Stay Safe!
-
It's actually kind of funny. People have been saying "I suspect in the next two years..." for as long as I've been a member here, nearly a decade. Some things never change.
-
Prove to me that standing bodies of water are flat with actual quantifiable data then I'll believe that the earth is flat
Hello. Please see the Bedford Level experiment by Samuel Rowbotham for the evidence you seek. Welcome to the group of flat earth believers :)
You realize that the Bedford Level experiment as evidence for a flat Earth has been debunked multiple times right? It is not evidence of a flat earth lol
To really get any conclusive evidence, the experiment would need to be performed over water that is not flowing. Try one of the Great Lakes and see what you find.
-
I suspect that in the next two years
Nope...
My mother, 30 years ago paid for a reservation for a space filght. Never happened...
Now 30 years later, after being promised yet again by Virgin we would get to enjoy space travel, guess what?
NOTHING!
Ship blew up... how convenient...
Now months later, NASA says:
"since your spaceship blew up, we'd like to give you contracts to ship things into space. Even though you clearly cannot get humans into space, nor an aircraft,... here take millions of dollars worth of our stuff into space. The tax payers will not mind if it blows up."
I paraphrased just a tad...
2 years from now you will still be waiting. 30 years from now it will be outlawed because of a supposed explosion killing all passengers...
This isn't even a good story. I can think of much better tales while sitting on the crapper...
.
Link all the videos you want. It's fake. Aint never happened and ain't never gonna happen.
See ya in 2 years! Stay Safe!
Well for one I hope you mother got her money back. Secondly, most of the Space X flights are commercial flights, not paid for by tax payers money. Plus all of these launches are Insured. So if they blow up, the money is not lost.
No Tax payers money With the exception of the NASA missions which is a small percentage of the launch missions out there currently. A lot of them are private commercial launches to deploy more satellites like Satellite phone service and such.
the next Heavy lift vehicles that are going up can launch much heavier payloads, and will significantly decrease the cost of putting things into orbit because they are using re-usable stage 1 rockets.
China wants to get to the moon and have pushed forward their expectations to next year for exploratory missions as well as the feasibility of mining prospects.
A lot of you FE'ers will say impossible, and that you have been waiting for years with nothing, well, we will have to wait and see.
-
Can anyone address the question posed about the celestial poles and the star trails that rotate in opposite directions on the Northern and southern hemisphere?
I've never heard a satisfactory argument for why this happens on a flat Earth. I saw a video by Eric Dubai that seeks to explain it but the assertions made make no sense to me. Can anyone here explain it?
-
Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that the earth is flat. But I think that the discussions are both interesting and challenges your thinking :-)
I want to ask some of the flat earth believers if there's ANYTHING that could convince you that the earth is not flat? E.g. if you were invited into space to look for yourself or whatever. What would be 'the ultimate proof' for you that the earth is, in fact, not flat?
I doubt that flat earth believers will rush at this.
Before I put my foot too close to my mouth I would like to ask what are the accepted distances for:
Measurement | Distance I would use |
Equator to North Pole | 10,000 km |
Circumference of Equator | 40,000 km |
Rounding the distances to nice simple numbers would be nice, as high accuracy is not needed.
I believe I can justify these figures (or close to them) from previous writings of TFES or widely accepted data.
-
Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that the earth is flat. But I think that the discussions are both interesting and challenges your thinking :-)
I want to ask some of the flat earth believers if there's ANYTHING that could convince you that the earth is not flat? E.g. if you were invited into space to look for yourself or whatever. What would be 'the ultimate proof' for you that the earth is, in fact, not flat?
I doubt that flat earth believers will rush at this.
Before I put my foot too close to my mouth I would like to ask what are the accepted distances for:
Measurement | Distance I would use |
Equator to North Pole | 10,000 km |
Circumference of Equator | 40,000 km |
Rounding the distances to nice simple numbers would be nice, as high accuracy is not needed.
I believe I can justify these figures (or close to them) from previous writings of TFES or widely accepted data.
I think it's a bit silly to ask rhetorical questions like that, because we can all agree on these measures (in rounded numbers). However, I don't see how this is a proof of a RE?
-
I doubt that flat earth believers will rush at this.
Before I put my foot too close to my mouth I would like to ask what are the accepted distances for:
Measurement | Distance I would use |
Equator to North Pole | 10,000 km |
Circumference of Equator | 40,000 km |
Rounding the distances to nice simple numbers would be nice, as high accuracy is not needed.
I believe I can justify these figures (or close to them) from previous writings of TFES or widely accepted data.
I think it's a bit silly to ask rhetorical questions like that, because we can all agree on these measures (in rounded numbers). However, I don't see how this is a proof of a RE?
Actually that post was just to see if there was general agreement on those figures, and it was not really "proof of a Globe", but to my (maybe warped) mind at least if was proof that the earth could not be flat.
I posted a lot more detail in this post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4589.msg89018#msg89018 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4589.msg89018#msg89018)
But, very briefly:
On any round disk (such as the flat earth) a circle (the equator circle):
the circumference is 2 x π x radius of the equator circle or 62,832 km.
So if the earth were flat, to fit with the 10,000 km equator to pole distance
the distance around the equator would have to be 62,832 km.
But on the "real" earth the distance around the equator is only 40,000 km.
So to me it seems that the real earth simply will not fit on a flat surface.
Mind you, I don't know of a simple symmetric shape that will fit those figures, other than a sphere, but some topographical genius might suggest one.
-
I am curious! The previous post has been here over 2 weeks, and claims to be "The Ultimate Proof" - what gives - no-one cares?
Have a look here: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4311.msg89215#msg89215 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4311.msg89215#msg89215).
It would be an exaggeration to claim it is the "proof of a Globe".
How do you "prove" something? but to my mind at least it is
proof that the earth cannot be flat.
Just possibly this video might picture it better than I can!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ievzGLRaSj4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ievzGLRaSj4) |
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/The%20Flat%20Earth%20Myth%20Disproved_zpsdxrxv6xc.png) Clip from Flat Earth Myth Disproved |
Maybe my figures were wrong, but nobody queried them and I believe they are well justified!
The 10,000 km from equator to north pole is quite close the figure given a number of times in the Wiki.
See http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude (http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude).
The equator diameter can by found from:
from: http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzdistancedegree.htm (http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzdistancedegree.htm)
A degree of longitude is widest at the equator at 69.172 miles (111.321 km).
Where we get the width of a degree of latitude at the equator, making 360° x 111.3 km/deg = 40,068 km(close enough to 40,000 km).
The same figures can be found from numerous sources, or just get someone that lives on the equator to measure it!
[Edit: added link]
-
I don't even understand why anyone would come here attempting to "prove" the earth is round. Obviously 12+ years of public indoctrination and however many photos from NASA hasn't convinced the skeptics of a globe earth, it's surprising people like rabinoz even try. There's obviously enough reasonable doubt to at the very least say: we can not be sure. You can pull numbers and hypotheses up all day but you can not one way or another prove it either way. It is well accepted that even things we take for granted like heliocentricity is just a "model" and the motions of heavens, eclipses etc can all be charted, mapped, and predicted just as well on a geocentric model. So to me I remain agnostic, until something does come along and remove all reasonable doubt one way or the other.
-
I don't even understand why anyone would come here attempting to "prove" the earth is round. Obviously 12+ years of public indoctrination and however many photos from NASA hasn't convinced the skeptics of a globe earth, it's surprising people like rabinoz even try. There's obviously enough reasonable doubt to at the very least say: we can not be sure. You can pull numbers and hypotheses up all day but you can not one way or another prove it either way. It is well accepted that even things we take for granted like heliocentricity is just a "model" and the motions of heavens, eclipses etc can all be charted, mapped, and predicted just as well on a geocentric model. So to me I remain agnostic, until something does come along and remove all reasonable doubt one way or the other.
I hate to disillusion you, but NASA had nothing to do with deciding that the earth is a Globe! You are simply stuck in your NASA delusion!
The Globe has been well accepted for over 2,500 years.
It is you NASAphobics who have been brainwashed!
No! the numbers I am using are not pulled out of the air, or "hypothesised", they are well accepted
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
The distance from the Equator to the North Pole is the 90° (from above) times the 69.5 miles per degree! (convinced? - no I guess not!)
As I put in the previous post the degree of longitude at the equator is (almost exactly) the same as the degree of latitude. Sailors and all other navigators have used this for centuries! If you, in your wisdom, wish to dispute this you will need some good evidence!
Yes, there is no doubt that the measurements of the real earth simply will not fit on a plane surface.
These distances are comparatively easy to verify!
-
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&list=PLcjQVpaEjyM3gxnx7DZ8fS7nRES0icKyP&index=1
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
I stopped watching when he got to the flights between Australia and South America.
Then looked up QF28, non stop from Sydney to Santiago, 14hrs.
Is this aircraft able to travel much faster or something?
-
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
. . . . . (two hour flat earth hard sell video) . . . . .
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
I stopped watching when he got to the flights between Australia and South America.
Then looked up QF28, non stop from Sydney to Santiago, 14hrs.
Is this aircraft able to travel much faster or something?
As you have probably found out, I don't think there are flights "West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ." - you found the Santiago one!
Below are the shortest distance routes from Sydney(Australia) to Santiago (Chile) on the Gleason's Map[1] and on Google Earth (for the Globe).
Note that the actual routes used on long distant flights will usually be chosen to fit in with the current winds. The return flight from Chile to Sydney often would be routed further south, sometimes within sight of Antarctica.
Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map" about 25,400 km (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png) | Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth" about 11,400 km (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png) |
I'll leave it up to you to see which fits the actual flight information!
Mind you I don't know of any large passenger that can fly non-stop for over 25,000 km!
[1] Note that while the Gleason's map is often used by Flat Earthers, it is not the "Official Map"!
-
(1)Note that Gleason's Map is simply a copy of the well know Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.....Of the globe.
(2)Note also the distortion south of the equator and especially the size and shape of Australia.
(3)Note also that using this map, part of the flight would take place over the Northwest to the Southwest of the United States.
(4)Note also that there is no accurate flat earth map of the entire world...."As It Is"....."Official"....Or Unofficial.
(5)Note also that this map shows Antarctica as the "Ice Ring" due to the nature of the extreme distortion south of the equator.
-
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&list=PLcjQVpaEjyM3gxnx7DZ8fS7nRES0icKyP&index=1
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
I stopped watching when he got to the flights between Australia and South America.
Then looked up QF28, non stop from Sydney to Santiago, 14hrs.
Is this aircraft able to travel much faster or something?
Typical Flat Earth Answer would be :"QF28 does not exist."
-
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&list=PLcjQVpaEjyM3gxnx7DZ8fS7nRES0icKyP&index=1
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
I stopped watching when he got to the flights between Australia and South America.
Then looked up QF28, non stop from Sydney to Santiago, 14hrs.
Is this aircraft able to travel much faster or something?
Typical Flat Earth Answer would be :"QF28 does not exist."
I dont think the fact that it exists is the question, what I'd be more interested in finding is a flight that actually goes over antartica, from south america to australia. That would be the nail in the coffin per se, if it was something that ever existed.
-
Ultimate proof? Fly across Antarctica. Better yet. Fly south from anywhere on the planet until you are actually flying north, crossing the Arctic North Pole only to return from where you took off. East to west flight would prove nothing, but South to North I think would. What say you?
-
(1)Note that Gleason's Map is simply a copy of the well know Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.....Of the globe.
(2)Note also the distortion south of the equator and especially the size and shape of Australia.
(3)Note also that using this map, part of the flight would take place over the Northwest to the Southwest of the United States.
(4)Note also that there is no accurate flat earth map of the entire world...."As It Is"....."Official"....Or Unofficial.
(5)Note also that this map shows Antarctica as the "Ice Ring" due to the nature of the extreme distortion south of the equator.
(1) Yes!!! (2) Yes!!! (3) Yes!!! (4) Yes!!! (5) Yes!!!
-
Ultimate proof? Fly across Antarctica. Better yet. Fly south from anywhere on the planet until you are actually flying north, crossing the Arctic North Pole only to return from where you took off. East to west flight would prove nothing, but South to North I think would. What say you?
There have been quite a number of Polar Circumnavigations (some by air):- Sir Ranulph Fiennes with 'Transglobe' (1982): first polar circumnavigation by surface travel taking 10-years http://www.ranulphfiennes.co.uk/ (http://www.ranulphfiennes.co.uk/).
- TAG Global claims record for polar circumnavigation
From: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-12-31/tag-global-claims-record-polar-circumnavigation (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-12-31/tag-global-claims-record-polar-circumnavigation)TAG Group vice president Aziz Ojjeh and a team of four other pilots broke a 31-year-old speed record for a pole-to-pole circumnavigation of the globe in late November. The TransPolar08 crew circled the globe over the North and South Poles in a Bombardier Global Express, chopping 95 minutes off the record previously held by a Pan Am Boeing 747SP that made the trip in October 1977
From http://www.dommagazine.com/article/earthrounders-first-aerial-circumnavigation-globe (http://www.dommagazine.com/article/earthrounders-first-aerial-circumnavigation-globe)
In 1971, Elgen Long piloted his single-engine Piper Navajo over both poles. “As if that achievement weren’t enough,” says Glines, “Captain Long added four firsts: the first to fly around the world and land on all seven continents, the first to cross the equator at both the prime meridian and the 180th meridian, the first to fly across the Antarctic solo, and the first to solo from Antartica to Australia.”
As well as those trekking to the South Pole.
-
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&list=PLcjQVpaEjyM3gxnx7DZ8fS7nRES0icKyP&index=1
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
I stopped watching when he got to the flights between Australia and South America.
Then looked up QF28, non stop from Sydney to Santiago, 14hrs.
Is this aircraft able to travel much faster or something?
Typical Flat Earth Answer would be :"QF28 does not exist."
I dont think the fact that it exists is the question, what I'd be more interested in finding is a flight that actually goes over antartica, from south america to australia. That would be the nail in the coffin per se, if it was something that ever existed.
My friend recently caught a flight from Santiago to Auckland, non-stop. I asked her if she could see Antarctica, but she said the flight path was too to high (in latitude).
Regardless, the flight time was about 13hrs. I know because I spoke to her when the was boarding in Santiago and she texted me when she got to Auckland.
-
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&list=PLcjQVpaEjyM3gxnx7DZ8fS7nRES0icKyP&index=1
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
I stopped watching when he got to the flights between Australia and South America.
Then looked up QF28, non stop from Sydney to Santiago, 14hrs.
Is this aircraft able to travel much faster or something?
Typical Flat Earth Answer would be :"QF28 does not exist."
I dont think the fact that it exists is the question, what I'd be more interested in finding is a flight that actually goes over antartica, from south america to australia. That would be the nail in the coffin per se, if it was something that ever existed.
My friend recently caught a flight from Santiago to Auckland, non-stop. I asked her if she could see Antarctica, but she said the flight path was too to high (in latitude).
Regardless, the flight time was about 13hrs. I know because I spoke to her when the was boarding in Santiago and she texted me when she got to Auckland.
Convenient
-
My friend recently caught a flight from Santiago to Auckland, non-stop. I asked her if she could see Antarctica, but she said the flight path was too to high (in latitude).
Regardless, the flight time was about 13hrs. I know because I spoke to her when the was boarding in Santiago and she texted me when she got to Auckland.
Convenient
Just what is an inane comment like that supposed to convey?
Are you doubting these flights New Zealand to/from South America, Australia to/from South America and Australia to/from South Africa?
Maybe a bit of evidence! I live in Australia and know how simply ridiculous any FE maps of this part or the world.
The most accepted maps can't even get the E-W dimensions of Australia (and South Africa, South America and New Zealand) anywhere near correct.
Start talking when you have something to offer, in the meantime the Heliocentric Globe explains everything we observe far better.
-
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&list=PLcjQVpaEjyM3gxnx7DZ8fS7nRES0icKyP&index=1
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
I stopped watching when he got to the flights between Australia and South America.
Then looked up QF28, non stop from Sydney to Santiago, 14hrs.
Is this aircraft able to travel much faster or something?
Typical Flat Earth Answer would be :"QF28 does not exist."
I dont think the fact that it exists is the question, what I'd be more interested in finding is a flight that actually goes over antartica, from south america to australia. That would be the nail in the coffin per se, if it was something that ever existed.
My friend recently caught a flight from Santiago to Auckland, non-stop. I asked her if she could see Antarctica, but she said the flight path was too to high (in latitude).
Regardless, the flight time was about 13hrs. I know because I spoke to her when the was boarding in Santiago and she texted me when she got to Auckland.
Convenient
Yeah, it is convenient. I would say that the flight time basically rips the FE map to pieces.
Time for a new map?
-
If youre talking about the azimuthal equidistant map the only thing accurate on it is the longitude. I assume someone with enough skill could also make one that is accurate laterally but then again that still would be a projection, not a map.
I'm guessing the reason there isn't a flat map is because cartographers haven't been paid to make them for over 500 years. But there is absolutely no reason why the earth can't be accurately depicted on a flat surface, it's just a matter of funding, research, and competing with a model with 500 years of energy behind it.
-
If youre talking about the azimuthal equidistant map the only thing accurate on it is the longitude. I assume someone with enough skill could also make one that is accurate laterally but then again that still would be a projection, not a map.
I'm guessing the reason there isn't a flat map is because cartographers haven't been paid to make them for over 500 years. But there is absolutely no reason why the earth can't be accurately depicted on a flat surface, it's just a matter of funding, research, and competing with a model with 500 years of energy behind it.
There is every reason! The measurements of the real earth simply will not fit on a plane surface.
We ask Flat Earthers to come with their measurements of the obvious things like equator to north pole and equatorial circumference and we get ignored.
We make suggestions of measurements that can be done and we get ignored.
We point out that surveyors have made these measurements on the actual earth, so the measurements are available and we get ignored.
I am convinced that the reason the Flat Earth Movement will not put any effort into making a map is that so many appreciate that it can't be done!
There, will that prompt some action or just more words?
-
I am convinced that the reason the Flat Earth Movement will not put any effort into making a map is that so many appreciate that it can't be done!
What you are convinced of is literally irrelevant. Not only is your opinion objectively false, but it is bordering on nonsensical. If that is the best you can come up with, then it is no wonder you are a round earther.
-
I am convinced that the reason the Flat Earth Movement will not put any effort into making a map is that so many appreciate that it can't be done!
What you are convinced of is literally irrelevant. Not only is your opinion objectively false, but it is bordering on nonsensical. If that is the best you can come up with, then it is no wonder you are a round earther.
So, just words dismissing the idea of a map.
Look you don't have the slightest chance of getting wide acceptance without an accurate represention of your Flat Earth. Unless you have a map that people in general and navigators in particular can use to find their way around, with accurate distances, no-one that matters will take you seriously!
Some say, but you can always use GPS. Of course, but who developed it? Yes, your arch enemy, NASA!
But still, there will always be the need for celestial navigation, with a map that gives accurate distances.
You, just don't get the message! I guess it's easier to be a little fringe group. It doesn't really bother me, other than to stop the idea damaging career prospects of young people who may not have had the correct type of education.
Yes, I agree education should teach people to think for themselves and should not "indoctrinate".
Students should not be given just "facts", but the reasoning behind those facts.
So, if I have it all wrong, just what is the equatorial circumference of the earth? No-one else seems to know or care!
-
I am convinced that the reason the Flat Earth Movement will not put any effort into making a map is that so many appreciate that it can't be done!
What you are convinced of is literally irrelevant. Not only is your opinion objectively false, but it is bordering on nonsensical. If that is the best you can come up with, then it is no wonder you are a round earther.
That's just yet another portion of Teflon. There's nothing nonsensical in what you quoted at all, your response was pretty much standard though. Do you guys have a repository for standard comments to insert into your posts where everything else would fail?
He's actually asking simple questions. If FET had an ounce of seriousness to it, answering these questions should be trivial, with something else than the usual "if that's the best", "you make no sense" or "being eloquent hides the fact that we're delusional"-esk answers FE'ers seems to give, just by habbit.
-
I am new here and i am 50% flatearther 50% round earther... i am currently doing my own research... Could one not just go to the Atlantic ocean set up a high powered telescope and look toward Africa? or Pacific ocean towards Hawaii?
Even Globe supporters would say that you would never see that far as under even the best conditions, because of atmospheric absorption.
However, while the atmosphere absorbs visible light significantly, it is almost transparent to the radio wavelengths from "short wave" to 3 cm microwave.
So if the earth were flat microwave radio transmissions should certainly be received across large ocean distances (with large dishes)[1].
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity.svg/750px-Atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity.svg.png)
Rough plot of Earth's atmospheric transmittance (or opacity) to various wavelengths
of electromagnetic radiation. Microwaves are strongly absorbed at wavelengths
shorter than about 1.5 cm (above 20 GHz) by water and other molecules in the air.
So, if the earth were flat, we certainly should (would) see these links across large bodies of water, and there would be no need for the huge expense of communication satellites. Of course for huge data rates, these have now been supplanted by undersea fibreoptic cables.
Mind you,I have a solution that will keep us both happy!
Make the northern hemisphere flat, but keep the southern hemisphere a "hemisphere". Then we'll both be happy!
I made an earlier post on this thread http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4311.msg90274#msg90274 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4311.msg90274#msg90274) claiming that the known measurements of the earth simply will not fit on a flat plane. No-one seriously refutes it by questioning the measurements, yet all flat earthers just ignore it!
[1] Before the widespread use of fibreoptic cables, microwave links were commonly used for long distance communication links. The limiting factor on range is (you guessed it) the curvature of the earth. There are some links with around 200 km range, but the antennae are mounted on mountains of say 2,000 m.
see: http://blog.aviatnetworks.com/2011/05/04/the-worlds-longest-all-ip-microwave-link/ (http://blog.aviatnetworks.com/2011/05/04/the-worlds-longest-all-ip-microwave-link/).
:) You would really think that TFES would tell them that the earth is really flat! :)
-
I find Mark Sargent's style and presentation the best and most convincing of the flat earth youtube brigade
I haven't looked deeply into his material, but that's my perception. Sargent and Matt Boylan are the two picks of the lot. Sargent sure seems to have had a great attitude and personality while other newcomers dived into all of the petty bickering. He just published a book version of his videos from 2015 which is available through Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1523851430/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
-
I find Mark Sargent's style and presentation the best and most convincing of the flat earth youtube brigade
I haven't looked deeply into his material, but that's my perception. Sargent and Matt Boylan are the two picks of the lot. Sargent sure seems to have had a great attitude and personality while other newcomers dived into all of the petty bickering. He just published a book version of his videos from 2015 which is available through Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1523851430/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Boylan is a psychopath. He has some points but none of them unique.
If you can get over his anti zionist slant Eric Dubay is the man
-
I am new here and i am 50% flatearther 50% round earther... i am currently doing my own research... Could one not just go to the Atlantic ocean set up a high powered telescope and look toward Africa? or Pacific ocean towards Hawaii?
Even Globe supporters would say that you would never see that far as under even the best conditions, because of atmospheric absorption.
However, while the atmosphere absorbs visible light significantly, it is almost transparent to the radio wavelengths from "short wave" to 3 cm microwave.
So if the earth were flat microwave radio transmissions should certainly be received across large ocean distances (with large dishes)[1].
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity.svg/750px-Atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity.svg.png)
Rough plot of Earth's atmospheric transmittance (or opacity) to various wavelengths
of electromagnetic radiation. Microwaves are strongly absorbed at wavelengths
shorter than about 1.5 cm (above 20 GHz) by water and other molecules in the air.
So, if the earth were flat, we certainly should (would) see these links across large bodies of water, and there would be no need for the huge expense of communication satellites. Of course for huge data rates, these have now been supplanted by undersea fibreoptic cables.
Mind you,I have a solution that will keep us both happy!
Make the northern hemisphere flat, but keep the southern hemisphere a "hemisphere". Then we'll both be happy!
I made an earlier post on this thread http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4311.msg90274#msg90274 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4311.msg90274#msg90274) claiming that the known measurements of the earth simply will not fit on a flat plane. No-one seriously refutes it by questioning the measurements, yet all flat earthers just ignore it!
[1] Before the widespread use of fibreoptic cables, microwave links were commonly used for long distance communication links. The limiting factor on range is (you guessed it) the curvature of the earth. There are some links with around 200 km range, but the antennae are mounted on mountains of say 2,000 m.
see: http://blog.aviatnetworks.com/2011/05/04/the-worlds-longest-all-ip-microwave-link/ (http://blog.aviatnetworks.com/2011/05/04/the-worlds-longest-all-ip-microwave-link/).
:) You would really think that TFES would tell them that the earth is really flat! :)
An example of this would be the operations at one time of the en-route Air Traffic Control Centers of the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States.This has probably been superseded by more advanced methods since but was a commonly used system in the late 20th Century operations.
There were several of these Centers located about the USA.
One of these was located at Fort Worth, Texas. In order to cover their area of control, several radar stations were located at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ; Odessa, Texas; Texarkana, Arkansas; and Keller, Texas. If the earth was flat, why not just one radar with a sufficient long range ? But because the earth is round , the range of these particular radars was limited by the curvature of the earth.
But in order to relay this radar information to the Centers, several microwave repeater stations were necessary between these radar installations and the Centers. If the earth was flat, why not just one repeater station at the radar site and one at the Centers ? Again, this was because the earth is round and the range of these repeater stations was limited by the curvature of the earth.
http://www.bensware.com/scandfw/fwartcc.htm
Notice also how many installations of transmitters and receivers ("RCAG" - Remote Center Air To Ground stations) were necessary for communications between "ATC"(Air Traffic Control) and the aircraft. Again...Why so many ? Because the earth is round and the range was limited by the curvature of the earth.
:) You would really think that TFES would tell them that the earth is really flat! :)
It may be a long, long way to Tipperary, but it is a long, long way from Odessa to Fort Worth.
Another question for the flat earthers.:
If the earth was reallly flat , why do we have to have those crow's nests or radar antennas mounted so high on masts on ships ? Why not just put the radar antennas on the top deck ....and the persons on the bridge could see just as far if the earth was flat ? You would really think that TFES would tell them the earth is really flat ! I am sure those lookouts would be a lot happier if they didn't have to climb the masts to get in the crow's nests. LOL.
-
Do you think radio waves never decay? Do you think they aren't subject to atmospheric interference? My uncle worked in the Navy, as a sonar tech, but I asked him how does the radar system work, and he actually told me they bounce the waves off the sky to travel further distances.
-
Do you think radio waves never decay? Do you think they aren't subject to atmospheric interference? My uncle worked in the Navy, as a sonar tech, but I asked him how does the radar system work, and he actually told me they bounce the waves off the sky to travel further distances.
Which is correct, but it depends on the frequencies. Different kinds of radio waves behave differently under certain atmospheric conditions
-
Do you think radio waves never decay? Do you think they aren't subject to atmospheric interference? My uncle worked in the Navy, as a sonar tech, but I asked him how does the radar system work, and he actually told me they bounce the waves off the sky to travel further distances.
Which is correct, but it depends on the frequencies. Different kinds of radio waves behave differently under certain atmospheric conditions
The examples of the radar , radio and microwave systems in the previous post were simply of the frequencies and design criterias that their ranges were limited by the curvature of the earth. Other frequencies and designs would operate differently. These examples were just of systems which were in use at the time. For example , ask some ham radio operator why he operates on the 75 meter band and another why he operates on the 2 meter band ?
And the bottom line is that the earth is a globe. These are just examples of evidence of one area in which the curvature of the earth is proven .
Of course the old sailors knew about how the curvature of the earth affected the distance they could see from their crow's nests long before the inventions of radio and radar.
It is also too bad that FES had not informed them that the earth was flat. :D
-
Gecko we get it everything proves the earth is round, and otherwise we should inform them that it is flat. Your mission is accomplished. The more you try to convince the FES how wrong they are the more you look like the desperate, wrong one. You notice no one is trying to prove to you the Earth is flat, right?
-
Gecko we get it everything proves the earth is round, and otherwise we should inform them that it is flat. Your mission is accomplished. The more you try to convince the FES how wrong they are the more you look like the desperate, wrong one. You notice no one is trying to prove to you the Earth is flat, right?
I do find it strange that all you and so many (presumably) flat earth supporters seem to is try to find "holes" in the Globe earth.
Almost all of the time these "holes" in the Globe earth are simply a failure to understand the earth and the rest of the solar system.
You never seem to provide positive evidence for the Flat Earth.
Even when asked about specific points we rarely get an answer. I have specifically asked (not you in particular):
about sunrise directions - no answer,
about moon phases - ditto,
about UA - ditto.
Just funny how most FE supporters either don't know anything about their own Flat Earth or aren't prepared to support it.
-
Gecko we get it everything proves the earth is round, and otherwise we should inform them that it is flat. Your mission is accomplished. The more you try to convince the FES how wrong they are the more you look like the desperate, wrong one. You notice no one is trying to prove to you the Earth is flat, right?
Of course we know that everything proves the earth is a globe and nothing proves the earth is flat.
I supposed it was something that got obsessive in posting "round earth" facts and seeing all the silly answers you get from the "flat earthers."
My first try at this was the old "distance from the earth to the moon" subject and how some amateur radio operators came up with the results of their "Moon Bounce" experiments. You can see how that one went. The moderator finally locked it .
I have received a few PM's from some who got so tired of this forum that you no longer see any posts from them any more.
I suppose I should do the same, but it's too hard to kick the habit. It has been fun for me to debunk flat earth, but it has gotten tiresome, so maybe it's time for me to depart the scene of the crime, too. Same flat earth answers all the time - denials.
It is also just my opinion but I still wonder if these websites - both of them - were intended to be "spoof" websites like a lot of others on the Internet. I think some flat earthers are like the old "ham actors" (no reference to the radio operators .LOL) who liked to over emote to try to prove their case. Like one moderator, for an example.
-
Quote from rabinoz.:
Mind you,I have a solution that will keep us both happy!
Make the northern hemisphere flat, but keep the southern hemisphere a "hemisphere". Then we'll both be happy!"
Suggestion:
Make the northern "HEMIPLANE" flat, but keep the southern hemisphere a "HEMISPHERE". Then we'll both be happy.
-
Quote from rabinoz.:
Mind you,I have a solution that will keep us both happy!
Make the northern hemisphere flat, but keep the southern hemisphere a "hemisphere". Then we'll both be happy!"
Suggestion:
Make the northern "HEMIPLANE" flat, but keep the southern hemisphere a "HEMISPHERE". Then we'll both be happy.
Do you think there is enough room in the southern hemisphere countries for all the "HEMIPLANer refugees" we would get.
BTW you can keep Donald Trump up on the "plane".
-
I am convinced that the reason the Flat Earth Movement will not put any effort into making a map is that so many appreciate that it can't be done!
What you are convinced of is literally irrelevant. Not only is your opinion objectively false, but it is bordering on nonsensical. If that is the best you can come up with, then it is no wonder you are a round earther.
That's just yet another portion of Teflon. There's nothing nonsensical in what you quoted at all, your response was pretty much standard though. Do you guys have a repository for standard comments to insert into your posts where everything else would fail?
He's actually asking simple questions. If FET had an ounce of seriousness to it, answering these questions should be trivial, with something else than the usual "if that's the best", "you make no sense" or "being eloquent hides the fact that we're delusional"-esk answers FE'ers seems to give, just by habbit.
Robert Heinlein had it right;
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house
If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
But best quoted is this one;
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.
-
I am convinced that the reason the Flat Earth Movement will not put any effort into making a map is that so many appreciate that it can't be done!
What you are convinced of is literally irrelevant. Not only is your opinion objectively false, but it is bordering on nonsensical. If that is the best you can come up with, then it is no wonder you are a round earther.
That's just yet another portion of Teflon. There's nothing nonsensical in what you quoted at all, your response was pretty much standard though. Do you guys have a repository for standard comments to insert into your posts where everything else would fail?
He's actually asking simple questions. If FET had an ounce of seriousness to it, answering these questions should be trivial, with something else than the usual "if that's the best", "you make no sense" or "being eloquent hides the fact that we're delusional"-esk answers FE'ers seems to give, just by habbit.
Robert Heinlein had it right;
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house
If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
But best quoted is this one;
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.
Were you trying to make some kind of a point? Not only are the quotes you posted sensationalist non sequiturs, they are also completely irrelevant. I'm not sure if it makes you somehow feel smarter or superior by posting them, but they have no bearing to the discussion.
-
Do you think radio waves never decay? Do you think they aren't subject to atmospheric interference? My uncle worked in the Navy, as a sonar tech, but I asked him how does the radar system work, and he actually told me they bounce the waves off the sky to travel further distances.
Radio does decay, but those of us who don't deny space travel are aware that radio transmissions are detectable here on earth from the two Voyager probes (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/), currently 16 and 20 billion kilometers away, transmitting at a whopping 20 watts. Sure, it takes huge dishes to pick that up, but it can be done.