481

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another FEW Question...

« on: January 16, 2019, 02:10:24 PM »

Do you have a quote from someone on the ISS?

Would it make any difference to your thoughts if he did? Afterall it would only be a voice coming out of a speaker.  I have no doubts about it but I can't see you accepting a voice as evidence.  The school where I work once set up a Skype link with the ISS and not only could we speak to the astronauts we could actually see them as well.  There was no funding for that. One of the science teachers had a contact at the ESA control centre who arranged it for us and the rest was set up with a bit of IT know how.

If I stated I had a quote from an astronaut claiming he couldn't see stars or didn't see a spherical earth or didn't photograph or videotape a spherical earth (Apollo 11, for instance) that immediately gets called into question by RE adherents as being,"...not what they really meant," or, "...you don't understand..."

Get off your high horse.

I don't care what your freaking opinion is about the question or belief about the issue as a whole.

The guy I addressed my post to either has the goods relevant to what he claimed or he doesn't.

It's a pointless question if you're already unwilling to believe or acknowledge his answers. Why not try listening in on the ISS yourself instead? Anyone should be able to do it just fine and they make contact with schools sometimes as well.

https://amsat-uk.org/beginners/how-to-hear-the-iss/

So, are you an alt admitting he has no quote?

Your baseless assumptions are an obvious sign that you're not interested in pursuing that data and information for yourself and are clearly quite happy to just stay believing your own thing which is fine, but in that case maybe not bother asking obviously pointless questions. My point was that he may well come back to you with direct quotes of people having conversations over radio with the ISS, but you have made it clear you don't care either way and so before he bothers wasting his time, I offer you an alternative to find out for yourself first hand whether or not people converse with other people on the ISS. Unless you are willing to look into it for yourself (because let's face it, you won't believe him if he posts a random quote) there's really no point in your arguing it to be false.

"Do you have a quote from someone on the Flat Earth?" - see how pointless that same question is? If you say yes and quote someone, what does that even prove or disprove and why should I believe it's a quote from someone on a flat earth and not anywhere else from anyone else? If the FE way is to find the answers yourself then go do it rather than relying on secondhand, unverifiable quotes of people you think don't exist anyway.

482

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 16, 2019, 01:52:53 PM »

How do I know Jupiter is rotating?  Because I have seen it rotating through my telescopes.  I take it you don't have a telescope then otherwise you would be able to see the same thing I do.

You beat me to the answer, I was about to literally write "because telescopes exist". We can observe these things using telescopes, of which aren't digital or programmed instruments so we can't be lied to through such technology.

483

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another FEW Question...

« on: January 16, 2019, 12:08:26 PM »

Do you have a quote from someone on the ISS?

Would it make any difference to your thoughts if he did? Afterall it would only be a voice coming out of a speaker.  I have no doubts about it but I can't see you accepting a voice as evidence.  The school where I work once set up a Skype link with the ISS and not only could we speak to the astronauts we could actually see them as well.  There was no funding for that. One of the science teachers had a contact at the ESA control centre who arranged it for us and the rest was set up with a bit of IT know how.

If I stated I had a quote from an astronaut claiming he couldn't see stars or didn't see a spherical earth or didn't photograph or videotape a spherical earth (Apollo 11, for instance) that immediately gets called into question by RE adherents as being,"...not what they really meant," or, "...you don't understand..."

Get off your high horse.

I don't care what your freaking opinion is about the question or belief about the issue as a whole.

The guy I addressed my post to either has the goods relevant to what he claimed or he doesn't.

It's a pointless question if you're already unwilling to believe or acknowledge his answers. Why not try listening in on the ISS yourself instead? Anyone should be able to do it just fine and they make contact with schools sometimes as well.

https://amsat-uk.org/beginners/how-to-hear-the-iss/

484

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 16, 2019, 11:17:00 AM »

Tom, using two points on earth to figure out the distance to another planet won't work, you'd need to use separate points of reference, for example you can work out the distance to the sun using Earth, Venus and the Sun. Using Earth, Earth and the Sun at the same time won't suffice (you could use earth twice if you wait maybe half an orbit(6 months) I suppose). Using earth as two points in a triangle at the same time is a flawed method and no one would or should use it to work out distances to planets.

At any rate we can now use radio signals to determine distances of planets, since we know how fast radio waves travel. Why ignore such technology?

485

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 15, 2019, 03:49:16 AM »

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the age of the solar system is a tad bit more than 2000 years. Not sure how anyone can dispute that.

...when science meets religion...

well recorded history is more than 2000 years old so not much to do with science.

486

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another FEW Question...

« on: January 14, 2019, 01:34:10 PM »

Again under the FAQ page it states...

The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve

According to whose definition is the Earth not a planet and what proof (not opinions) have you got for this statement as it stands?

The only real answer you will get is that it's the observable truth. you can't individually view the earth externally (yet) so there's no individual proof that it's a planet too. It's a good thing mirrors exist otherwise people might think they aren't human either if they can't see themselves in third person.

I don't think there's any proof other than something similar to what Tom might say, in that by default earth isn't a planet until proven otherwise and that they don't need proof of that...

487

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly

« on: January 11, 2019, 06:23:47 PM »

The earth is observably flat by default.

My little finger is observably larger than the tree I can see out of my window, but a bit of logic, education and critical thinking (and a short walk) convinces me that a simplistic "it looks this way, so that's the way it is" is in this case a false conclusion, so objectively I can't always rely simply on what I see.

An evidence-less argument for an illusion is a weak argument. You need to demonstrate it.

Do you see everything in orthographic? It'll take two seconds to test this yourself with your own finger but sure, no evidence for it. The problem is right in your quote. You refuse to acknowledge any evidence that goes against you for absolutely no reason and then you say no one presents any evidence... And you think we're trying to avoid the topic?

Tom, do you or do you not agree that our visible view on the ground level of the earth would look the same if it were flat or ball?

Now, do you or do you not agree that our own senses can be deceived with optical illusions ?

Now, do you agree that we cannot rely on our own senses for everything, including sight? For example, most people have body dysmorphia, they see their own body completely differently to everyone else. Do you agree with this phenomenon?

488

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A shape question about the FE

« on: January 11, 2019, 04:09:39 PM »

According to the flat earth way of thinking, you cannot possibly know the shape, all that is known is that it's flat as far as we can individually see. I'm actually not entirely sure where the disk shape idea comes from.

489

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly

« on: January 11, 2019, 03:25:57 PM »

The earth is observably flat by default. The possibility of it being a big ball, or whatever you imagine it to be, needs to be proven. It simply doesn't matter if you scream "you can't see it because it's an illusion!!1"

The fact that when we look at the matter closer and we find contradicting observations into the distance which support sinking and non-sinking is pretty telling. The fact that we have seen multiple long term timelapse of the horizon which show that the light is constantly curving in the distance to make things appear to sink, and sometimes to unsink, is also telling. The fact that the famous sinking photos don't even match up with the stated curvature for the round earth, which we have looked at, is telling still.

There is no real evidence for the ball earth. Aristotile's proofs for a globe based on sinking ships and lunar eclipses are unsupportable.

The double standards here... So much evidence of flat earth is contradicting. Misinterpreting data of a spheroid earth does not mean it's flat. Likewise, proving the earth isn't flat doesn't then make it spheroid either. This argument of "Must be flat because it isn't round" is getting old. Almost any flat earth evidence can be debunked.

Try telling a blind man the earth is flat... Under your own methods he is someone who cannot take your word for it because he doesn't see what you see. Because the blind man doesn't see a flat earth does that mean it's not flat? No, it means he simply cannot see if it's flat. Nor can he see it's round either. Should he trust his senses that tell him the world is a black void with no visibility? If so does that then mean that for everyone who isn't blind, their whole visible reality does not exist because that blind man said there's nothing visible?

The whole sinking ship thing is ridiculously anecdotal for everyone who tries it one or even a few times, there are so many factors that may change their results. elevation, tide, weather. Show me contradictory footage of sinking ships that are all under the exact same conditions otherwise it's pointless footage as evidence for either round or flat.

The sky is a clear indicator, we can observe other planets orbiting the sun and we can take our own positions into account to show we also orbit the sun. We can observe the moon orbiting us as well as other planets having their own moons. Where in any data regarding planetary movements contradicts the fact that earth is a planet? What do all planetary bodies look like?  spherical. How is that contradictory to the idea of earth being a spherical planet?

Looking out around the world it looks flat, this is what we expect to see on a giant sphere the size of earth compared to the size of humans. This isn't contradictory and we can easily see this to be the case simply by getting a camera and zooming in on a football/basketball/any kind of ball.

From what I can see there isn't much contradicting evidence of earth being a sphere, just cherry picked and misunderstood information. Meanwhile, you yourself switched from the standard flat earth model to a bi-polar model just yesterday to try to prove your point, both models completely contradicting each other while still both being inaccurate, then have the audacity to call anyone else evidence contradictory? Come on now...

If seeing is undeniably believing in your case then does that mean any magician is actually using real magic? All of documented history never happened and earth began the second you were born and opened your eyes?

A wise person once said if they cant agree on such basic stuff, then don't trust them on anything. So why if flat earthers cannot agree on basic stuff among themselves and with themselves, should we trust you on anything? Just looking at the flat earth wiki has so much content that does not agree with other content of the wiki. Why then should I trust your interpretation of any of the data that provides evidence of flat or round earth?

That wise person was Pete talking about NASA

So yeah, the earth looks flat if you simply look out. That doesn't mean it is flat though, a curve has been witnessed however inconsistently with the sinking ship effect, showing that not all is as it seems and that optical illusions exist with a simple glance so why then should you trust your own vision on this matter?

490

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do you believe in the FE?

« on: January 10, 2019, 07:02:17 PM »

Just to add to my answer, one other factor could be that the majority of people who "know" the earth is sphere don’t actually know much about the earth, solar system and universe or why the things are the way they are. So when someone questions that, they think to themselves "oh, this guy is saying the earth is flat, he’s done his research and I can’t refute it" and so someone who didn’t know anything about the heliocentric model suddenly questions what they thought they knew. A lack of information and understanding can really change the scales. Myself included in fact, over 10 years ago when I found out about the flat earth society my first question was, quite arrogantly, if the earth is flat then how do people sail around the world and come back to the same location? It’s a stupid question in hindsight and now, over a decade later I know better and strangely I’ve Learned a lot about the world simply from trying to question flat earth. I’m not a flat earther, but simply trying to debate with these people has given me a huge understanding in the heliocentric model and more.

Another reason would be that psychologically, people who believe in other conspiracies are more inclined to believe in this one. That’s the ‘tinfoil hat’ variety of flat earthers.

491

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do you believe in the FE?

« on: January 10, 2019, 05:23:38 PM »

That is exactly what you would expect isn't it regardless of whether the Earth is round or flat?  Same thing applies to me but I still acknowledge I live on a spherical Earth.  I also know the reasons why.

It seems to me that you need justification and "reasons" for your position while totallackey just simply needs to look out his window and see that the earth is flat.

Yes, when I look at a murderer and he's not murdering someone, he's definitely not a murderer. No proof or justification required, he's clearly innocent as he's clearly not murdering someone when I look at him.

Back on the topic though, You'll be hard pressed to find many flat earthers answer this question directly. I think religion does play a part, I've often heard people say the bible says it's flat, so it must be flat. Not only that, if taken literally, the bible says a lot of things that science disagrees with and so in order to keep ones faith in the bible intact, one must simply believe the bible and ignore any naysayers.

Another reason I think is that without any equipment or taking someones word for it, you cannot see the earth being round. I'm sure some indigenous tribes would have a hard time believing you if you told them we're on a spinning ball in a vast nothingness.

I also think that the realisation of earth being a tiny spec in the vast universe makes one feel small and insignificant, some people may have a hard time believing that they are so worthless, that there must be some creator with a grand scheme for us all, we all like to think we are individual and special and having a reason for being (I'm not saying anyones life is actually useless and without meaning, just that some people may feel that way in the face of such a vast universe).

492

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do you believe in the FE?

« on: January 10, 2019, 05:09:37 PM »

Today, for instance...I looked out my window and the land surrounding me, other than hills and dales? Flat.

Yesterday? Same thing. Flat.

All my travels over land and water? Everywhere I go...aside from hills, mountains, valleys, and dales? Same thing. Flat.

How would it look if it were curved, with a radius of about 6,400 km?

At the risk of using what's obviously a meme made to mock (which isn't my intention), this is a great example of what a sphere would also look like close up. lumpy but flat.

https://i.redd.it/znl7nrd8u8311.jpg

493

Flat Earth Community / Re: I Made a 1:1 Scale Model of flat earth

« on: January 10, 2019, 02:55:18 PM »

Who proved such lighting?

Ignoring the fact that there are people covering so much of the land in the world that you can communicate with and tell each other what the time is and how dark it is outside, showing timezones to be accurate, anyone who's been to Antarctica can confirm the constant daytime during summer. I would show video footage but there's no point since you can just claim it's fake or whatever. Before you say no one is allowed to Antarctica, we are. People go there all the time. Yes there is paperwork involved and it's a long process that can also be rejected but it still happens.

If you don't want to believe anyone else about the times in different timezones feel free to travel around the world and keep a note of how dark it is at what times on your own watch. If you still refuse to believe the Antarctica summer, well what can we do to prove that it's a thing? There's witnesses from the general public and video footage, you could go on an expedition too.

EDIT: Just for the hell of it, I'll link a video anyway.you can choose to believe it or not I suppose.

494

Flat Earth Community / Re: I Made a 1:1 Scale Model of flat earth

« on: January 10, 2019, 02:31:44 PM »

<img src="https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/day-night-area.jpg" alt="Image result for flat earth model"/>

Explain how this happens on a flat Earth...

There was a gif made to represent this as well as the same image mapped to a sphere to show how accurate the lighting works on a globe.

495

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma

« on: January 10, 2019, 01:58:08 PM »

The Bi-Polar map is for example purposes only. No one made it to be based on anything.

You just gave it as an example of the correct way of solving this dilemma. You chose the bipolar map, because the other maps don't work out for this problem, so let's stick to it:
https://i.imgur.com/PTAoU9U.png
- How can a cross-Earth flight from LA to Sydney only take 13 hours, and only take place over the ocean (thus having to go around the continents)?
- How come the passengers don't notice the refueling, and how come they can only see ocean out the window?

I gave you links showing that they lie about flight times and that they lie about non-stop flights. Yet, you keep insisting that they are truth.

We haven't even discussed jet streams.

There is also not a Bi-Polar map, only a Bi-Polar model. Are we supposed to design a map around lies?

If you are able-bodied there should be nothing really stopping you from getting a license to fly and taking a holiday to pilot yourself to different locations, right? It's not as if it's impossible to test these things out for yourself or even for anyone. Since GPS works and functions as it should, the burden of proof is really on you if you're going to claim that it's all a lie.

The bi-polar map really presents more problems than it solves in terms of flat earth. Not a great example. Before you ask me what a better model would be I'm only going to say that the globe model just works perfectly as it should... The fact that any flat map is having trouble working with real life experiences of travel is surely quite telling?

496

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma

« on: January 10, 2019, 11:37:20 AM »

I just used distances given on Google Earth, a product you say you use "daily" and therefore must trust.
I don't know how they calculate distances, but I do know it is used by millions of people every day, including you, so if their data is inaccurate then you'd think that would have been noticed.
If you are now claiming that the distances are inaccurate then what is your basis for that? How they are calculated is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether they are correct.

It should be pretty clear that they did not send a little robot with a measuring wheel to go and measure the distance when you made the online request, nor have they ever done that. Next you should probably consider if anyone has ever done that. If you decide that no one has done that then we must be talking about something theoretical that has to do with how the latitude and longitude numbers are determined.

Saying you haven't proven it to be correct or incorrect doesn't disprove it being correct. Google maps proves it's self correct when literally anyone uses it and results in the correct time estimations and destinations.

497

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Apparent size of the sun

« on: January 10, 2019, 11:17:32 AM »

Then you must agree that if the sun were a projection upon the medium of the atmolayer that a solar filter would do nothing to get rid of it except to reduce glare in the eye or the camera lens.

I agree it would look similar to a heliocentric sun but I fail to see how you can prove the sun is a projection upon an atmolayer as opposed to the heliocentric sun any more than I can prove Megalodons are still alive in the ocean.

Can you observe the sun being a projection? Can you substantiate that claim with anything at all? This is pure imagination otherwise. It's not that I don't want you to be right though; I think it'd be a fantastic discovery and all the power to you if you do have any real findings.

498

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Apparent size of the sun

« on: January 10, 2019, 10:16:20 AM »

A solar filter only reduces the glare in your eyes, for eye protection, it wouldn't eliminate an external projection on the atmosphere.

Does wearing sunglasses in a movie theatre shrink or eliminate the projection of the movie on the screen?

when a cinema screen starts emitting the same amount of light  as the sun, the screen would definitely look like a large glaring blob of brightness instead of just a rectangle. Add a solar filter in the way and you will see the rectangle again. The same happens with the sun and the suns brightness. it looks like a large blinding blob of light until you either see it through a thin layer of clouds or even during a sunset at the lower point.

Here's a comparison, it doesn't "shrink" the sun when using a filter and the sun does not vanish into the distance, it simply sets below the land at a visibly constant rate.

499

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Apparent size of the sun

« on: January 09, 2019, 09:56:42 PM »

Anything not using a filter to visibly see the actual size of the sun and moon, flat earth or round earth, is not evidence. The suns flare does not count toward size. This is common sense as you do not observe the sun without a filter (that would be stupid anyway)

the round earth explanation for the sun getting bigger on dusk and dawn is explained, what about flat earth? From what I understand of flat earth is that the sun would get small to the point of non existent then get bigger again. At least that is one flat earth hypothesis based around the explanation they have of perspective. If the sun gets to the horizon without shrinking to nothing, then expanding again, I have no reason to believe this reasoning.

My understanding of perspective if that that the closer something is to you, the more percentage of your view it covers. Thus, the further something is, the smaller percentage of your view it takes and will then look smaller. I understand that not every flat earther believes perspective works the same way so that's why I give the above challenge. If you cannot prove the sun shrinks to nothing then back again, then my understanding of perspective is correct.

500

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Models vs patterns

« on: January 09, 2019, 03:51:56 PM »

I happen to agree with pete on this point I think, some published papers can be falsified and people will do and have done that in order to further their career or get a minute of fame for their findings. However, this is what peer reviewing is for and a lot of scientists are caught out with incorrect findings or data, be it on purpose or not. The point in peer reviewing is to correct any mistakes or false data that someone may have in their findings. As such it is an imperfect system, but it is a system regardless (at which point, I think this is better than nothing). Saying "magic" created something where you do not understand otherwise is obviously inferior to saying you just don't know. With that said you need a model in the first place to be able to realise it is incorrect and thus correct it.

With regards to scientists falsifying data to further their own agenda; with every person that does that there is also a lot of other scientists that will read through and claim bullshit just to get that step up as well. Afterall, who wouldn't want to correct a popular finding? It's pretty messy anyway.