721

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A refutation of RE that RE-ers will accept - experiment at home on 20th March

« on: April 21, 2016, 11:07:33 PM »

The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

Then prove the flatness.

Already done, but thanks for stopping by!

I lurked on this website and theflatearthsociety.org website for quite awhile before making an account. The ONLY evidence I have seen presented is:

• "Look out your window, it looks flat" (The earth has a radius of about 4000 miles. Of course it looks flat out your window.)
• Distance to the horizon experiments. (Every experiment I've seen is either poorly documented, uses bad math, or doesn't account for refraction. Usually all three.)

Is this what you are referring to as proof, or did I miss something?

722

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 21, 2016, 09:48:13 PM »

Even Newton suggested it absurd that mass by virtue of being massive can exert a force through a vacuum. There is a medium. Modern physics is leaning towards everything being a field.

No offense, but I sincerely doubt you have a very thorough knowledge of QFT. I don't really know much about QFT either. A poor understanding of a very complicated theory is a recipe for bad conclusions. For example...

How can space (vacuum) be nothing? There has to be a medium by which the electromagnetic and nuclear forces are transferred. If space was nothing, including the space between an electron and the nucleus of an atom, everything would collapse.

So the effect might be the same -- things falling at 9.8m/s² until a terminal velocity due to atmospheric resistence. But I don't believe the Earth being big is the reason why.

As far as I know, your arguments against the existence of a true vacuum are correct, depending on how you define a "medium". However, I fail to see the connection between that and the implausibility of mass being the cause of gravity. In fact, gravity is very well defined as a classical field associated with a mass.

Disclaimer: As far as I know, gravity isn't well understood under QFT. Anyone who figures this out is pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize. That doesn't mean that there is any evidence that gravity isn't associated with mass.

But why no anomaly? Is the Earth so perfectly homogeneous? Has it been proven to be so? Why would the center of mass be perfectly perpendicular to the core? Is it that much more dense and somehow more massive then all of the rest of the mass on Earth? Does the sloshing molten metal have a pull to it?

Of course there are anomalies. You can personally detect the anomalies with a cheap lab scale. Of course the earth isn't perfectly homogeneous. The earth is approximately spherically symmetric, but definitely NOT homogeneous.

How did it become spherically symmetric? Because gravity naturally lends itself to creating spherically symmetric objects. Everything tends to gravitate towards the densest part. Heavy elements tend to sink down towards the middle. Lighter stuff tends to float towards the top. This results in roughly spherically symmetric layers. Also, the stuff in the middle is under a lot of pressure from the stuff around it, making it more dense.

It doesn't make sense if a particle is attracted to every other particle inversely proportional to the distance that everything would perfectly want to be drawn to the center of the sphere.

How good are you at calculus? It makes perfect sense. See the shell theorem.

Are you familiar with the Tamarack Mines Experiments?

Thanks for this. I had vaguely heard of it, but never read any details. I can think of two explanations of the results off the top of my head:
1. Static charge built up on the bobs caused them to repulse each other.
2. Gravitational attraction to the edges of the mine shaft.

I have no idea if these explanations would survive the actual calculations, but they seem plausible. I would hope that the author of the paper took into account these possible explanations, but I don't see them mentioned in the paper.

Also, I still don't see how this is evidence that gravity isn't a function of mass. Interesting experiment nonetheless.

723

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 21, 2016, 05:18:12 PM »

My brain hurts trying to follow this illustration

Yeah, we definitely took the long way around, since I was trying to answer his specific objections.

Universal Acceleration seems like ridiculous band-aid.

I agree.

There is another reason things go down and up, but I don't think it's a property endowed by virtue of mass.

If you have a better theory, we would love to hear it. Until then, I'll stick with the tried and tested theory (gravity), thank you very much.

Why would things move exactly perpendicular time and time again, instead of when near a mountain, somewhat towards it.

Because as big as mountains are, they are tiny compared to the earth. Here's the great thing about gravity: we have actual equations capable of making actual predictions (as opposed to anything flat-earth related). I did a rough calculation of the strength of gravity from an 8000 meter tall mountain made of granite for someone standing 8000 meters away: 0.002 m/s². That's roughly 5000 times less than earth's gravity. If you have an instrument capable of detecting that tiny of a deflection, you are welcome to go and test it out!

724

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 20, 2016, 02:56:14 PM »

Space is not empty.  There is still mass that has to be displaced for the FE to accelerate through it.

I agree. Flat-earthers probably wouldn't though, considering they claim all space missions to be faked.

You certainly said nothing in regards to Bob's acceleration. 

Not explicitly. Sorry. I DID talk about gravity and drag, both of which are forces. Forces cause acceleration. No force = no acceleration. Look up Newton's laws.

You stated that since he isn't at terminal velocity that he would fall.  Following the logic of this statement, as soon as he hits terminal velocity he will no longer fall and will in fact be floating. 

No, that isn't good logic. (A) implies (B) does not imply (not A) implies (not B). That was a confusing statement, so I will give an example:

Getting hit by a rock causes pain. Does that mean you will never feel pain if you don't get hit by a rock? Of course not. There are other things that cause pain besides rocks.

You also stated that the drag created by Bob's body will cancel the effects of gravity which also lead to a condition of floating.

No, it will lead to the condition of not accelerating. There is a difference between speed and acceleration. You can have lots of speed without any acceleration. When you are at terminal velocity, you have lots of downward speed relative to the air, but no downward acceleration. You are moving fast, but you aren't increasing your speed anymore.

The lift of the plane causes the sensation of gravity?  If this were the case then every single movement command input by the pilot would be noticeably felt by the passengers.  Every instance of increase in altitude would be felt as more gravity.  Every instance in decrease in altitude would be felt as less gravity.  This is clearly not the case.

But it IS the case! Have you ever been on a plane before? When you are taking off, you feel like you are being pressed back into your seat. It feels like gravity increased. When turbulence causes the plane to drop a few feet, it feels like you are suddenly being lifted from your seat. It feels like gravity briefly decreased. Also, it feels like your lunch wants to crawl back out your esophagus.

This is the point I have been trying to make. An accelerating reference frame feels exactly the same as a force in the opposite direction for those inside the reference frame. An airplane at takeofff is accelerating upwards and forwards. To the passengers, it feels like a force is pushing them down and back into their seats.

725

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 19, 2016, 11:21:20 PM »

How do we know that's all that matters?

The face of a sphere that can be seen depends on the angle that you view it at. If you are in front of it, you can see the front face. If you are on the right, you can see the right face, etc...

Let's not throw common sense out the window.

How do we "know" what happens to perspective tens or hundreds of miles away? Who studied that?

I don't know. It's common knowledge though, and can be easily derived. In fact, I personally derived the equation before looking it up. The burden of proof is on you to disprove it if you think it is wrong.

Here is the equation for the apparent angular diameter (a) of an object of height (h) that is a given distance (d) away:

a = 2*arctan(h/2d)

This equation works for any distance, assuming there are no optical distortions.

In high school they also teach that Christopher Columbus discovered that the earth is round, that deoxygenated blood is blue, that an apple fell on Newton's head and helped him prove gravity, and that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.

My point wasn't that anything taught in high school must be true. My point was that trig is extremely easy to prove or disprove. Once again, if you think trigonometry is wrong, the burden of proof is on you to disprove common knowledge.

Are you really dismissing the entire theory of perspective just because it hasn't been tested at every possible distance? What happens if we test it at 1000 miles? Will you still claim it is invalid at 1001 miles? What about 999 miles? What about 1000.0001 miles?

Learn to extrapolate data. It's a valuable tool.

Perspective hasn't been tested at any large distance at all. At what distances has it been tested? Who studied it? Please name names and cite studies rather than claiming that it has been proven.

Don't dodge the question. Why do you think the equation given above can't be used at larger distances?

Pyrrhonism can be fun to think about, but ultimately this attitude that you have of "nothing can be known for certain" is totally useless for trying to build theories of how the world works. Sooner or later, in order to learn anything useful, you will have to assume something is true. Being skeptical is fine and dandy, but if you have no evidence to suggest that certain pieces of common knowledge are wrong, then it's usually best to assume they are correct.

726

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 19, 2016, 08:03:54 PM »

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away.

Of course the sizes and distances aren't to scale, but the angles are to scale. That's what matters.

No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

Does it matter? We absolutely know what perspective does to objects inches away, miles away, tens of miles away, hundreds of miles away. Why would it be any different for thousands of miles? And why would perspective cause the moon to appear to turn? Have you ever observed perspective to cause ANYTHING to appear to turn? Perspective causes things to appear smaller, not turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone.

By "ancient geometric theories" do you mean basic highschool-level trigonometry? Because trig is extremely easy to prove.

We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

Are you really dismissing the entire theory of perspective just because it hasn't been tested at every possible distance? What happens if we test it at 1000 miles? Will you still claim it is invalid at 1001 miles? What about 999 miles? What about 1000.0001 miles?

Learn to extrapolate data. It's a valuable tool.

727

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 19, 2016, 03:31:50 PM »

If the FE is constantly accelerating upward there would be a displacement of air from in front of it.

Why would there be? The air would be pushed up by the ground, accelerating at the exact same rate as the ground, and moving at the exact same rate as the ground. The air would NOT be moving relative to the ground. Just like someone standing on the ground would not be moving relative to the ground. You can think of the air as "standing" on the ground.

So designers of things such as rockets, airplanes and automobiles don't have to do any calculations or take air displacement into account when designing their respective products since the air in front of each item is simply moving along with said item?

No. Airplanes/rockets/cars are moving through the air, not with the air. In the flat-earth UA scenario, the earth is not moving through the air. It is moving through space (presumably), and the air is being pushed along in front of the earth. Sometimes some kind of "firmament" is mentioned that keeps the air trapped next to the earth.

Yes, terminal velocity is a thing, but I'm not sure what it has to do with UA. Reaching terminal velocity requires moving so fast relative to the air, that your vertical drag from the air cancels out the force of gravity (or UA). When Bob steps out of the airplane, he is initially NOT moving vertically relative to the air. Therefore, he will have no vertical drag, and will not be at terminal velocity. Therefore, he will fall.

What the hell is this even supposed to mean?

If vertical drag cancels out the force of gravity then Bob would be floating in mid air.  You've already stated that Bob falls because he doesn't have wings.  Now your stating that, as long as he hits terminal velocity, he can cancel out the effects of gravity and float?

No, I didn't say he could float. I said he will stop accelerating. Acceleration = change in speed. Terminal velocity (speed) is the maximum speed at which someone will fall through the air, because if they go any faster, air resistance will push back stronger than gravity/UA pulls them down, which prevents them from accelerating further. They will continue moving downwards though.

The "magical force" is just an upwards accelerating reference frame. Everything in that reference frame would appear to be accelerating down in comparison. The objects in this reference frame would appear to behave exactly as if there was a constant downward force acting on them. Like gravity.

This goes directly back to my initial statement.

"Once a person is free from the surface of the earth, through whatever means (but we'll go with an air plane here), they are free from the effects of gravity and are actually waiting for the earth to catch up to them, since there supposedly no gravity and only the effect of the earth rushing up."

Assuming they step out of the plane, yes. If they are still in the plane, then the lift produced by the plane causes the sensation of gravity.

728

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 19, 2016, 08:59:27 AM »

If the FE is constantly accelerating upward there would be a displacement of air from in front of it.

Why would there be? The air would be pushed up by the ground, accelerating at the exact same rate as the ground, and moving at the exact same rate as the ground. The air would NOT be moving relative to the ground. Just like someone standing on the ground would not be moving relative to the ground. You can think of the air as "standing" on the ground.

This displacement of air should cause some measureable effect on a body, any body, within the realm of displacement.  This concept is readily seen in a vertical wind tunnel, the type any person can pay money to get into to approximate the experience of skydiving.  You contend that, because we don't have wings, humans are doomed to free fall through air.  Yet I can step into a vertical wind tunnel, with no special apparatus, and experience a situation in which I am not freely falling through air, simply through the interaction of displaced air acting on the surface area of my body.

Yes, terminal velocity is a thing, but I'm not sure what it has to do with UA. Reaching terminal velocity requires moving so fast relative to the air, that your vertical drag from the air cancels out the force of gravity (or UA). When Bob steps out of the airplane, he is initially NOT moving vertically relative to the air. Therefore, he will have no vertical drag, and will not be at terminal velocity. Therefore, he will fall.

You're concentrating on lift at the expense of the magical force that somehow gives us the perspective of gravity.

The "magical force" is just an upwards accelerating reference frame. Everything in that reference frame would appear to be accelerating down in comparison. The objects in this reference frame would appear to behave exactly as if there was a constant downward force acting on them. Like gravity.

729

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 19, 2016, 08:36:58 AM »

No, you see, if UA were truly UNIVERSAL then it would accelerate me even when I am no longer in contact with the earth, as it apparently accelerates the moon and sun and all the other not-attached-to-earth celestial objects we never catch up to.  But it does no such thing.

Oh, I see what you mean. Why does UA accelerate the earth and celestial bodies but not stuff on the earth? No idea. I guess that's just part of the "theory"...

730

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is Australia? 99.9% proof one way or the other

« on: April 18, 2016, 08:28:18 PM »

Dude, this is the age of the internet. If there is widely available public data that the authorities claim to be true, but is easily proven to be false, it generally gets called out.

Thank you for confirming shill standards. 

Whaaaat? Read my username. I'm totally not a shill for our reptilian overlords human authorities! Yeah... totally not.... um.......



Seriously though, I have never required peer-reviewed sources in any of my posts. I try to only make arguments that can easily be confirmed by the average person. I can't speak for everyone on the forum though...

731

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is Australia? 99.9% proof one way or the other

« on: April 18, 2016, 06:20:32 PM »

Dude, this is the age of the internet. If there is widely available public data that the authorities claim to be true, but is easily proven to be false, it generally gets called out.

Heck, it generally gets called out even if it ISN'T easily proven to be false. Hence, the existence of this website.

Exactly. There is no "they", because there is no flat-earth conspiracy, because the earth is not flat...

There are no bounds to human stupidity.

The level of apathy and ignorance generally exhibited by the majority of the populace has been expertly crafted and cultivated. Yes, by a they. An informed public is a dangerous public. Much easier to play to their fears and prejudices than to have a functioning education system.

Blue pill or red pill, its obviously your choice.

This has nothing to do with human stupidity. Rather, it relies on the fact that the observational abilities of a group of people increases with the size of the group.

Yes, crowd sourcing an important decision is often a bad idea. The group's decision roughly depends on the average person's understanding of the subject matter.

However, you CAN generally rely on crowds to notice obvious discrepancies. It only takes ONE person (out of millions) to notice and report the discrepancy. If the discrepancy is something easily detectable for the average person, (like the reported distance on a public highway), and if you have millions of people within observational range of that discrepancy (Australia has millions of people), then there is a very good chance that that discrepancy will be noticed and reported by someone.

732

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is Australia? 99.9% proof one way or the other

« on: April 18, 2016, 06:01:33 PM »

It doesn't matter whether he's driven it himself.  It's enough that people are at liberty to drive across Australia as they please, and nobody has found any evidence that it's a different shape. 

No.  It is NOT enough. 
However, if that is enough-for-shills, then it reveals the Shill Standard of Proof = popular perception.  Thanks for disclosing such! 

Dude, this is the age of the internet. If there is widely available public data that the authorities claim to be true, but is easily proven to be false, it generally gets called out.

Heck, it generally gets called out even if it ISN'T easily proven to be false. Hence, the existence of this website.

If there really was something to hide, they would have to physically keep people out of most of Australia, or else they would just be having faith that nobody will ever pay attention.

They?   
Who is they??

Exactly. There is no "they", because there is no flat-earth conspiracy, because the earth is not flat...

733

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 18, 2016, 05:31:01 PM »

It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion.  Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?

There is nothing magical about lift, although it can be pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty details.

The 'magical force' he refers to is not lift, it is Universal Acceleration.  As in: If UA really is Universal, why does the airplane NOT experience UA while airborne?  Why do I not experience UA while standing on the earth?  Shouldn't I be accelerating upward at the same 9.8 m/s² as the earth is, and thus NOT feel gravity?  Why is it only the flat earth that gets accelerated?

No, he is definitely referring to lift, although he might not know it himself.

Assuming UA is true*:

You do experience UA while standing on the ground. Like you said: you are being accelerated upward, pushed by the earth, at the same rate as the earth (9.8m/s²). This provides the exact same sensation of weight as gravity. Have you ever heard of someone in a race car or fighter jet experiencing a certain amount of "G's"? Two G's means they are experiencing an acceleration that feels like twice that of gravity (19.6m/s²).

The same applies to the airplane accelerating up with the earth. The only difference is that instead of being directly pushed (accelerated) up by the earth, it is being pushed (accelerated) up by lift from the wings.

When poor Bob steps out of the plane, he is no longer being pushed up by the earth or by the lift from the plane. Therefore, he is no longer being accelerated up along with the earth. Therefore, he accelerates down towards the earth (or the earth accelerates up towards him, depending on your perspective).

* I don't actually believe UA to be true. There are plenty of other ways to disprove it.

734

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is the Earth really flat?

« on: April 18, 2016, 04:15:38 PM »

Why not open a thread to demolish them one by one yourself?  It could be fun!

Number 10:

That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.

The sheer idiocy of some of them IS mildly entertaining...

735

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 18, 2016, 02:58:49 PM »

The plane is airborne because of lift.  Lift doesn't account for upward acceleration. 

Yes, it does. In general, there are four forces acting on a plane:

• Lift (up): generated mostly by the wings. The fuselage and engine can contribute a small amount to this depending on the shape of the plane and the angle of attack.
• Weight (down): generated by gravity (or Universal Acceleration, if you are a flat-earther)
• Thrust (forward): generated by the engines.
• Drag (backward): generated by air resistance.

For straight and level flight, these four forces must be balanced. Lift=Weight, Thrust=Drag.

If Lift is greater than weight, the plane accelerates upward. If Lift is less than weight, it accelerates downward. If Thrust is greater than drag, then the plane accelerates forward. If Thrust is less than drag, the plane slows down.

In fact, angle of attack accounts for upward, downward or level flight in a plane.

Yes, changing the angle of attack can change the amount of lift generated by the wings, causing the plane to accelerate up or down. Lift is approximately proportional to the angle of attack.

Either way the plane has to be moving forward for lift to work and even forward movement isn't enough to guarantee proper lift if the angle of attack is wrong.

Yes, the wings only generate lift if the plane is moving forward. Lift is approximately proportional to the speed of the plane squared.

Since you've narrowed the difference between Bob and the plane down to wings being the deciding factor, if a plane stops all forward motion why does it fall from the sky?  If the angle of attack is incorrect why does it fall from the sky?

Yes, wings aren't the only deciding factor. Bob would also need to be able to generate some thrust, either with an engine or by flapping really hard. I thought this was rather obvious, sorry.

It seems to me that this magical force which is accelerating the plane upward with the earth would be able to act upon anything within its sphere of influence, at least in some fashion.  Why will a plane, complete with wings but without forward momentum, fall from the sky if this magical, accelerating force is acting upon it?

There is nothing magical about lift, although it can be pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty details.

I guess you were under the assumption that I thought wings by themselves were enough to generate lift. Obviously, the plane must be moving forward at a sufficient speed and have the correct angle of attack for the wings to actually generate lift.

The plane has sufficient airspeed to allow the wings to generate lift. Bob doesn't have wings (for lift) or an engine (for thrust to maintain airspeed to generate lift). Hence, Bob falls when he steps off the plane.

736

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 17, 2016, 01:04:55 PM »

The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

He is using angles of the sun from the horizon for various latitudes at noon on the equinoxes. These angles are well known, and easily observable. This is an easy to use website that you can get this data from. Do you have reason to believe that any of this data is wrong? If so, feel free to present it...

The only thing that is reasonably controversial from a flat-earther's perspective is the distance from the equator that he gives (since flat-earthers can't agree on an actual map). Do you have reason to believe that the distances from the equator are wrong? If so, feel free to present it...

The figures on that website do not claim to come from observations.

Of course not. They just made a fancy way of presenting already well-known data. The position of the sun in the sky has been measured for thousands of years using sun dials. You can get this data on hundreds of different websites and libraries around the world. If this data was wrong, millions of people would notice.

You can test it yourself if you want:

Angle = arctan(height of sundial / length of shadow)

Use this website (Or one of a hundred others like it) to calculate the position of the sun for your specific location and time.

Don't claim that well-known, easily-testable, public-available data is fake unless you have personally tested it and found inconsistent results yourself.

737

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2 Simple, Definitive Proofs That the Earth Isn't Flat

« on: April 16, 2016, 07:25:17 AM »

I want to add to this. I hope you FE believe in how solar systems form. You know right? A giant mass of gas and dust gathered around, then the center builds up mass into the star, then that speeds up rotation and causes the particles to collide and grow. Anyways, how would a flat earth do that? How do we see the other plants in our solar system, or the tails of the Milky Way? Why is earth the only Flat thing in the universe? Look I like what you guys are doing. This is what science is about. Bending something each and every way to try and prove it wrong (even though it's already proven that earth is round) But another thing is how does the other plants stay around us? the comets, the asteroid belt, the kuipler system? Where do meteoroids come from? I hope you don't say something like "look it up yourself you filthy round earther" but I don't really have the time to search every page to find out how that works. Oh and also how about the new planet? The one bigger or the same size as Jupiter? How does that work too?

If you are interested in flat-earthers' opinions on the formation of the solar system, start a new thread. It's an interesting question, but it isn't relevant to this thread.

738

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 16, 2016, 07:13:59 AM »

The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

He is using angles of the sun from the horizon for various latitudes at noon on the equinoxes. These angles are well known, and easily observable. This is an easy to use website that you can get this data from. Do you have reason to believe that any of this data is wrong? If so, feel free to present it...

The only thing that is reasonably controversial from a flat-earther's perspective is the distance from the equator that he gives (since flat-earthers can't agree on an actual map). Do you have reason to believe that the distances from the equator are wrong? If so, feel free to present it...

739

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 14, 2016, 04:28:09 PM »

How do you know that the flat earth is traveling 99.9% of the speed of light.
How do you know how long the flat earth has been traveling?
How do you know the speed of light?
How does being a condescending prick work out for you in the real world bud?

There's some questions for you, try not to dodge them.

Point 1. Math. If one is accelerating at 1g in order to maintain 1g you are mathematically required to gain speed. But other things are going during the acceleration. Too much so to go into detail here which has been proved by both sides; FE and RE alike.

The whole point of the last few comments of this thread has been that claiming that "the earth is traveling at ____ speed" is completely pointless. You could declare the earth to be moving at absolutely any speed less than c, and be completely correct, depending on what you define as your frame of reference. (See Rounder's post. He gets it.)

Your other points stand.

740

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 14, 2016, 04:19:18 PM »

Naughty, Naughty and we are told we must learn from the Wiki!

He obviously disagrees with the wiki. This is the type of comment that causes a thread to dissolve into an incomprehensible shouting match, fyi. Please don't.