1

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: February 01, 2016, 02:39:24 AM »

The purpose was already identified: because you had to say something to get a reaction. Again... completely off topic.

And, no.. the Earth is not flat in spite of how you want to deceive yourself. There has yet to be a single piece of evidence that points to a flat Earth (and yes, I have read this site's entire faq - there is nothing there that hasn't been debunked multiple times).

I'm glad I was able to help you towards figuring out the difference between purpose and meaning, even if you missed the point. If you would like to discuss a particular topic in the faq or wiki, it would be helpful to include it in your post.

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: February 01, 2016, 02:10:54 AM »

I made no such assumption. And communication in a personal manner between people does still have a purpose. Your statement had no such purpose and as you admitted, your statement had no meaning, ergo, the only reason to speak was simply to say something or get a reaction, which is the very definition of a troll. Your comments are not even on topic, so not welcome.

We're talking about meaning, not purpose. My statement has purpose but no meaning. You need to refresh your definition of purpose and meaning before we can continue.

We have to get you up to scratch with the English language before we can talk about why the Earth is flat.

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: January 31, 2016, 08:54:19 PM »

A lot of misinformation in your statement.
This post already has 40 views, so you obviously have a bigger spotlight lol.

There certainly are people who make it a point that their words actually mean something.

Your statement that the majority of things said by all people has no meaning is a generalization and you have no evidence to implicate "all" people into the statement.

You are simply trolling, but hey, it keeps this thread at the top of the board

Why can't I be 35 of those views and you 5? Am I not allowed to look at a thread many times? I actually do have a factual bases for saying the majority of things said by all people have no meaning. The majority of communications between people is of a personal nature and is therefore meaningless. You have assumed people only communicate in a professional manor when in reality we spend most of our lives communicating in a personal manor.

Declaring someone a troll is a copout to providing an actual argument, you're basically saying "I can't argue with you so I will declare myself the winner and move on".

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flying over the ocean

« on: January 31, 2016, 08:47:39 PM »

What difference does the premise make?

If the earth is flat, YOU didn't see curvature.
If the earth is round, YOU still didn't see curvature.

Either way, using any model you like, you didn't see curvature as you claimed. That's it. We solved the mystery. This thread called 'Flying over the ocean' was about a made up scenario.


We get irritated by this because so many people come here "I used to work for NASA and ...", "I'm a Mig-25 pilot and ...", "I have been on a Soyez Rocket and ..." and then they expect us to solve how they saw something they made up. It is very boring.

You seem to be missing the point, we have moved on from the airplane example, that was solved 4 posts in. You are the only one still talking about it. Lets move on to the paper. I think you get irritated because you've already fabricated a scenareo in your head before reading the thread (as you say yourself, because you get lots of people coming in here talking about it). Now either read the thread properly and lets discuss some math, or leave because you have shown in every post on this thread that you have not read it and have no intention of contributing to the dialogue. The moderator has accused me of getting off topic when every single person who has argued with me on this thread has refused to read it.

Charming Anarchist and Oscar were the only two who actually read the thread and responded in context to the topic.

In my last post I outlined how I observered what I saw, you chose to ignore this, meaning you aren't actually reading anything I'm typing.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: January 31, 2016, 08:02:23 PM »

That merely means that the majority of people fall into that category of those who say things, because they need to say something
Typical of someone who has nothing to contribute and yet can't help that they need some spotlight.

I'm not really demanding the spotlight when I have an audience of 1. And no, you're assuming that some people exist who never say anything unless it has meaning. All people fall into that category, the majority of things said by all people has mo meaning.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:56:37 PM »

I was being sarcastic about it being unexpected lol
I would ask 'why make a comment that has no meaning?' but I do realize there are those who just have to say something

The vast majority of things said have no meaning to find meaning we have to look at calculable observations and reasonable interpretations.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flying over the ocean

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:53:57 PM »

Sigh. You started this post saying that YOU saw curvature on a flight.

Now forget whether the earth is round or flat, you demonstrably did not, as referenced in SexWarrior's link. Now you are saying that the source is invalid because it says earth is round? What point are you trying to prove? You said you saw curvature, you did not. Your premise for thinking earth was round has been invalidated. Forget the article's assumptions because the shape of the earth becomes irrelevant as your observations were made up. So this thread has become a discussion of your imagination, not the shape of the earth.

I did, and 4 posts later Oscar brought up, what I believe to be, the most probably cause. I thought the discussion was over but people kept posting and SexWarrior linked that article. Again, you fail to read what was actually said in the thread and choose to believe something else.

I'm not saying the source is invalid because it says the Earth is round, I look to the actual results and calculations. I'm saying that his calculations of curvature presupposes a round Earth. In essence, in his calculations, he has variables accounting for a round Earth. His findings are a direct result of his calculations. This is what I take issue with, everyone is happy to read his introduction and completely ignore the calculations behind his argument.

Please go over the calculations and lets talk about them.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flying over the ocean

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:47:23 PM »

I would expect so. 

I do not understand the animosity in this thread. 

The earth is not curved but I am not surprized that you perceived a curvature.  There are lots of optical illusions that give the impression of curved lines when they are actually straight. 

At some point, your eyes fail to see forever ---- that place along your horizon will unlikely represent a straight line.  Thus, you get the impression of a curve.

I don't understand it either. Oscar brought up the fisheye effect, which is I think the most probably explanation. It's easy to see with a curved lens (same shape as airplane windows) whatever you look at through them has 'sagging' edges. It could be that with a combination an optical illusion.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flying over the ocean

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:34:22 PM »

You just told Junker you were desperately trying to get the thread back on track. On a track where? You have a scientific answer, you have no rebuttal, this thread is toast.

Sorry, my rebuttal is in the edited post. I posted, realized no one read the article in depth, then had to go retrieve a portion of it to quote. I can quote more sections if you like regarding the assumption of a round Earth in his calculations.

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:31:46 PM »

A statement with no meaning - how unexpected...

It's not supposed to have meaning.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flying over the ocean

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:26:52 PM »

Your thread started with a lie. You said you saw something you didn't and asked the community here to defend that. You didn't see curvature. You absolutely didn't. Even if the earth were a ball, you could not see that unless you were at least 45,000ft, typically 60,000. That is just maths based on the acuity of the eye and the supposed curve.

Also don't mix the two types of curve. Yes the horizon wraps around you in a large circle. Of course it does, as it would if you were stood on a large dinner plate. The curvature you need to find is the earth dropping away from you at the horizon, ball like curvature.

Below is a scientific paper proving you came here with a lie, posted already by SexWarrior, which you ignored.
http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Don't expect respectful discourse when you arrive a liar, accuse all around of being wrong, get an answer and then ignore it because it isn't the answer you wanted.

The thread started with an observation, which (if you read the thread) was resolved ~5 posts later. I came here with the expectation of a reasonable discourse but no one wants the read the thread before posting. I also read that entire paper (again, something you would know if you read the thread), I was confused because the author uses the Earth's supposed curvature in his calculations.

Edit: It was 4 posts later

Fig. 6. Model of the horizon and the Earth’s curvature as seen by
an observer from an arbitrary elevation h above the surface. The
amount S (sagitta) by which the apparent Earth limb falls below
the horizon is easily calculable: S ¼ R − ðR2 − X2Þ1=2. To convert
this linear dimension to an angular dimension, we need only divide
each quantity by the distance to the horizon D ≈ ð2Rh þ h2Þ1=2).

Was I the only one to actually read the article?

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:23:49 PM »

Propaganda is a fierce mistress.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple experiments

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:17:50 PM »

1) Sail the most dangerous seas on earth (cape of good hope and cape horn) where there is a military exclusion zone south of 60 degrees, maintained by 59 nations. Nice idea, need $millions for a vessel and will be turned away when you get here.

2) Again, you can't go to Antarctica. There is the Antarctic Treaty which prohibits this. You certainly can't start sending off balloons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

Simple experiments? Is taking on the United Nations naval power simple?

Even if you were allowed to go to Antarctica you would need massive funding to conduct that type of expedition, either way spending millions of dollars isn't 'simple'.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flying over the ocean

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:04:42 PM »

Your entire diatribe was made up, not based on anything that actually was said. If you want to make things up, that's fine, just don't do it here. I'll ask you nicely once more to get back on topic.

Again, I'm desperately trying to get back on topic. If you scroll up you can plainly see that the first person to post something not related to optics was you insulting me. I can't make this up because what we typed is laid out for everyone to see. I ask again, do you wish to read the article posted and discuss it regarding the topic (again trying to get back on topic, but you won't let me), or do you want to keep insulting me?

I read the forum rules and I guess they don't apply to moderators.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flying over the ocean

« on: January 31, 2016, 06:56:36 PM »

Funny, I don't see SexWarrior saying that anywhere in his post. I think he's just trying to teach your more about your own flawed model. Instead of just saying thank you, you deflect and try to shift the topic. This is fairly common among round earth proponents though.

Interesting, claim I made a logical fallacy then make the same fallacy. I don't claim to be a REer yet you call my model flawed, my model being the flat earth model. I digress, just thought I would point out that you are literally putting words in my mouth with no basis. The basis for my assumption is that SexWarrior cited an article that is 100% focused on elevation and the curvature of the Earth. Ergo, I logically assumed he was purporting a round Earth model. If you put your cognitive bias on hold for a second and actually read the article he cited you would see how I arrived at that conclusion.

Also note I asked it in the form of a question, not a statement, so I could make sure I was interrupting it correctly. Please show some curtsy instead of throwing accusations around. I believe the forum doesn't tolerate personal attacks and you seem to have only contributed to this topic to attack me personally.

Your entire post is pure conjecture. Please stay on topic.

I'm sorry but you have no basis for that claim and are attempting to use it to distract from those personal attacks you felt the need to throw at me. Before that I was on topic talking about the fisheye effect causing the curvature and attempting to evaluate literature provided by another member. I wish you were as interested as I am in contributing to this topic so we can create a meaningful dialogue instead of posting low content attacks, then pretending they never occurred.

Are you interested in contributing to this tread or did you only post here because you wish to feel superior over others.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flying over the ocean

« on: January 31, 2016, 05:06:07 PM »

Funny, I don't see SexWarrior saying that anywhere in his post. I think he's just trying to teach your more about your own flawed model. Instead of just saying thank you, you deflect and try to shift the topic. This is fairly common among round earth proponents though.

Interesting, claim I made a logical fallacy then make the same fallacy. I don't claim to be a REer yet you call my model flawed, my model being the flat earth model. I digress, just thought I would point out that you are literally putting words in my mouth with no basis. The basis for my assumption is that SexWarrior cited an article that is 100% focused on elevation and the curvature of the Earth. Ergo, I logically assumed he was purporting a round Earth model. If you put your cognitive bias on hold for a second and actually read the article he cited you would see how I arrived at that conclusion.

Also note I asked it in the form of a question, not a statement, so I could make sure I was interrupting it correctly. Please show some curtsy instead of throwing accusations around. I believe the forum doesn't tolerate personal attacks and you seem to have only contributed to this topic to attack me personally.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flying over the ocean

« on: January 31, 2016, 03:48:45 PM »

This gives a good answer:

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

No, that's a terrible answer. Instead of relying on crappy pop-science websites, how about you read an actual peer-reviewed paper?

http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

The paper claims the Earth has a curvature, by citing this paper are you agreeing with that author that the world is round?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do other planets exist?

« on: January 31, 2016, 01:10:37 PM »

You told me to use google to find pictures of the Earth,

Not only that but his 1st link is nothing more than a Googly search.  That is not evidence --- rather, that is spamming and setting up a honey pot. 

He is helping Google collect data.

The plot thickens, I'm pretty sure data collection on people is his occupation.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do other planets exist?

« on: January 31, 2016, 12:18:46 AM »

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

I do in fact. Take a piece of paper and draw the earth on it. Now take a camera and take pictures of the piece of paper from any angle you choose. Look and the pictures you've taken and see that the center of the picture never changes. A simple experiment that allows you to see those photo's are doctored.

Obviously you aren't taking aetheric refraction into account.

No, because that's an outdated hypothesis. Frame-dragging is the correct term you're looking for and it doesn't apply to the distances we're talking about.

Frankly I don't give a shit if you believe my conviction.  Go away if you don't like the answers I give you.  You are a typical smug REer.

This is a typical government agent response, claim the true believer is a REer and act all indignant in the hopes your cover isn't blown.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do other planets exist?

« on: January 30, 2016, 10:47:34 PM »

You say they're real so they must have been taken at different angles of a round object (according to you).

No, I never said that.  How could that be when the Earth is flat?

You told me to use google to find pictures of the Earth, you claimed those pictures are real, the pictures in google images show many different continents as the central focus, this is impossible if the earth is flat. Where did I slip up? I think these pictures are doctored because if I draw the earth on a piece of paper I can only take a picture of it from one angle. I'm starting to think you aren't a flat worlder because you've made two assertions that can't co-exist. I knew the government wants to keep an eye on people who know the truth but this is the first time I've seen a piece of evidence to their existence online. You need more consistency in your logic to get people to believe your conviction.