21

Flat Earth Theory / Parallel universes

« on: December 21, 2017, 01:37:49 AM »

Can I just point out that if you accept that parallel universes exist then somewhere there must be a flat earth with all the relevant laws of physics in place?

I’m still trying to reconcile how

“We don’t know what shape or size it is, but we know it’s flat”
“It keeps accelerating but it never gets any faster”
“That's what the sun, moon and stars do”
“It’s a conspiracy”
“Photos are doctored”

are OK, but

“Round Earth can also be Flat Earth, if the Earth is a disc”

is a “horrible, horrible idea” from a “ … smart-ass”

and I can only think that we have a serious clash of cultures

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "Flat earthers"?

« on: December 14, 2017, 01:39:36 PM »

I think this is a great opportunity to tidy up the names.

"Flat Earth" is quite vague - it could be flat and square, for example.

Similarly, "Round Earth" can also be Flat Earth, if the Earth is a disc.

I appreciate the difficulty describing a flat map of the earth which agrees with cosmological, navigational and astronomical evidence, but in the absence of such a map the best the "Ballies" have to work with is the "Flatties'" own logo.

"Globers" and "Discers"? C'mon guys, you can think of something funnier than that

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the map

« on: December 14, 2017, 12:39:06 AM »

Flat Earthers argue that there is no true Flat Earth map. If this is the case, then how do airplanes and ships know which direction to go to. They seems to know which direction to go to get to certain place and approximately how long it takes. How can this happen if there is no "true map"?

The coordinate system is correct in that you can get to a location by going to a certain coordinate. The coordinate system assumes that the earth is a globe, however, and the coordinate points are mapped onto a sphere. Distances are calculated under this model, and are not directly experienced with any specific onboard tool.

We can't use distances calculated under the assumption of a globe when making a Flat Earth map. We might as well assume that the earth is a globe if we are using a spherical coordinate system. Those distances must be proven.

They know "approximately" how long routes take from past experience, and guess their speed from the theoretical distance traveled.

Per the Southern Hemisphere in the Flat Earth monopole model, the Flat Earth monopole map was not created based on any particular data. It is just a projection of a globe, and has no value in navigation. A true map has yet to be created. The stumbling block is that all listed distances rely upon a Round Earth spherical coordinate system.

Why is relying on a RE spherical co-ordinate system a "stumbling block"?

I'm just trying to imagine how WW2 would have panned out if the Japs had become fed up of trying to guess where Pearl Harbor was, or how tricky it would have been for the USAAF to find mainland Japan in their bombing raids.

US Navy pilots? "Attack the Jap ships at RE co-ordinate x,y. We'll rendezvous at a,b in 50 minutes. Or just turn left at the next wave." I simply cannot imagine how anyone could have operated carriers and planes without very accurate navigation technology, backed up by a paper map in case something technical got damaged.

How many mission records in each category:

- success
- missing in action
- aborted, bad weather
- aborted, tech problem
- aborted, couldn't find it

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mars is Round?

« on: December 12, 2017, 04:40:23 PM »

"The Sun and all eight planets of the solar system are round. Why? The gravitational force of a planet’s mass pulls all of its material toward the center, smoothing out any jarring non-roundness. Many of the smaller bodies of the solar system are not round because their gravity is not enough to smooth out their shape.

"We can see this from the escape velocity of various bodies. To escape Earth’s gravity, you need to travel at about 11 km/second, or about 40,000 km/hour. Such speeds require the largest rockets. Earth has a mass of 6 x 10^24 kg and is quite round. To escape the gravity of Comet 67P, which the European Rosetta and Philae probes visited, you need to travel at about 1 meter/second. You could jump faster than that. Comet 67P is not round at all; it has a mass of 10^13 kg, nearly one trillion times lighter than Earth, and is shaped like a rubber duck.

"Once a body becomes more than a few hundred kilometers across, it becomes more round than not. In our example, Earth’s diameter is about 12,700 km across; Comet 67P is about 4 km across.

"Despite its improbability, some scientists have wondered about what a cubical planet would be like. Assuming that the rocky part of the planet would somehow maintain its cubeness, the air and water would not have any such magical property and would pool in the center of each cube side. Life would be confined to the shores of the central lakes, with the cube edges and corners being giant impassable mountains."

- https://www.britannica.com/demystified/why-are-planets-round

Cubic Earth Theory, anyone?

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: December 12, 2017, 12:13:55 AM »

Funnily enough, solar was third on my list 

I ruled out fossil fuels (don't burn long enough, no smoke, certainly not enough photons) and fission (a whole new meaning to the term "sunburn") so, as Sherlock Holmes once said, " ... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Unless, of course, there's an as-yet-undiscovered type of energy in clear view that no-one has thought to investigate? Maybe the oil companies, not NASA, are behind this.

26

Flat Earth Theory / What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: December 11, 2017, 10:34:49 PM »

IIRC, one the strongest objections to the then new science of Geology and its claims that the Earth is millions, if not billions, of years old was that no-one could explain how the sun could provide heat and light for such a long time using the fuels of the time.

The discovery of nuclear fusion cleared that one up, and RET now says that

 - the sun is 150,000,000km away and 1,400,000km in diameter;
 - the "atmospheric pressure" at the centre is high enough to start a fusion reaction of hydrogen into helium;
 - The reaction runs at a temperature of 15,000,000K and releases 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts of energy.

FET says the sun is 4,800km away and 50km in diameter. Can anyone explain the rest rationally and possibly cogently?

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few questions

« on: December 11, 2017, 08:58:09 PM »

I'm assuming that the distance from North to South pole is the same for FE and RE.

Sydney to the North pole is ~8500 miles, and North pole to Santiago is another 8500 miles. Therefore Sydney to Santiago is 17000 miles.

Qantas fly direct from Sydney to Santiago in 12hr 40 mins, which means that Jumbo Jets can cruise at mach 2 for over 12 hours without afterburners.

Oddly they can't match this performance when flying from New York to London.

In REaliTy the distance is about 7000 miles and Jumbos cruise at a more realistic 550mph.