FE is a sad little world.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on March 17, 2024, 07:08:04 PM

What epistemological process was used to reach that advanced natural philosophy?

The assertion that there are nine planets is one that both RE and FE has accepted. You can see old models of a geocentric universe being drawn out.

And even newer ones.

Keep in mind that until the heliocentric RE alliance, the idea that Earth was round or flat, and that Earth was the center or not the center were two different theories, as you can see from these pictures. I simply translated this idea into a flat Earth model.

Quote

I'll settle for the real world we live in, thanks. Nine separate planets to explore, 200 billion stars in our galaxy with countless planets around them, many undoubtedly full of life.

Try a universe filled with death. Because according to all the scientists who teach astronomy as this, the Earth is a Goldilocks planet. There are very few Earth-like planets (most of these are given the Kepler designation), and many Kepler planets are too far from the sun (hmmmm, almost as though the idea that light extends infinitely is wrong, and distance actually does make a difference...) or are tidally locked, or have some other fatal flaw. This universe as depicted has nowhere to go (because we are the only planet able to support life), fueling the climate change narrative.
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1658/among-trillions-of-planets-are-we-home-alone/

This is what you claim to prefer. Do you have a problem with hating yourself?

So you do recognize that there are other worlds out there? Which are just now getting the ability to find. Yes most of them will be dead rocks like mercury, Venus and Mars and many will be gas giants like Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune. But I suspect that there will be some that are like Earth, teeming with life.
If there is a god why do you limit him to bring life to one planet out of countless billions?
And creation can't be more complex than a snap of God's fingers? Who said evolution is purely accidental? I think Life is a beautiful mystery not a divine magic trick, limited to one terrarium in the boondocks of the Milky way.
Where does such a narrow viewpoint come from?

Most climate change deniers are globularists as SCG mentions.

I think pollution and emissions are sadly ruining our beloved Earth. The rich don't care as long as they make a profit. At the expense of our ecosystems and even our own health, it doesn't matter. They don't care.

For example, pumping toxins, waste, and byproducts in water sources results in a gentle slap on the wrist and a fine that doesn't affect their business in the slightest.

Not from my experience, just arguing on this forum.

As for the latter point, solid waste is far more of a problem than liquid or gas waste. I'm not convinced carbon gas does any damage. Liquid does some damage (e.g. ducks covered in motor oil or ingesting weird water).

Solid waste? Ingested by animals, micro-particles, binds up animals so they drown, clogs the motion of streams and lakes. And so on. There's a phobia about burning things (sold on the public through the idea of smog affecting the atmosphere), but solid waste is an enormous issue. If we do not melt or burn plastic, sooner or later, we have more plastic than ocean.

Yes, we ought to mine less oil. But turning it into plastic was a truly awful idea. Like with most problems, it started with a lie. That plastic will be better for the environment. No, it's terrible! We could solve our oil dependence and the pollution of the California coast in one step simply by melting plastic back into oil.

They also can use chemistry to do this, but that risks adding substances into the plastic/oil. Moreover, doing this takes plastic out of circulation while putting oil back in circulation.

Which is why globalists object. The game is over once people realize that you have way more plastic than oil (and in fact, oil keeps being turned into plastic precisely to make fuel rare), and that all of it is basically stored fuel that gums up everything.  Bye bye "green" EV systems, hello to an end of ruined South East Asian landscapes.

As for the latter point,

That the sun in no way works in the way required for the flat earth delusion. 

If the earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north after passing California to make its circle.

FE easily debunked.  Heliocentric model accurately and reliably predicts our reality.  FE fails. 

I'm not convinced carbon gas does any damage.

Because you wilfully ignore the evidence while sucking the dick of big oil.

We could solve our oil dependence and the pollution of the California coast in one step simply by melting plastic back into oil.

You have had this lie called out so many times it isn't funny. Why do you keep repeating it?

If you're wondering why I mentioned Southeast Asia...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/southeast-asia-flooded-with-imported-plastic-waste-meant-for-recycling

Now in regards to the main topic, someone mentioned the sentiment, "Nothing lasts forever, not even the sun." You see, this rather nihilistic sentiment is at the core of this cosmos you have created for yourself. It has its roots, not in secularism, but the same sort of end times fascination that spawned things like Islam and the Watchtower cult.

In truth, Revelation is at odds with Jesus's own teachings. But you say, what about this passage?

5 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, 6 “These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”
7 So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”
8 And He said: “Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time has drawn near.’ Therefore do not go after them. 9 But when you hear of wars and commotions, do not be terrified; for these things must come to pass first, but the end will not come immediately.”
10 Then He said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven. 12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake. 13 But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony. 14 Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer; 15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. 17 And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. 18 But not a hair of your head shall be lost. 19 By your patience possess your souls.
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

This is about the Second Coming, right? No, it is not.

In 70 AD, the temple fell. In 1 Corinthians, they describe an event where Jesus appears to 500 people. We are living in post-apocalyptic times. Bow, some of these prophecies are eternal, that is, every generation might encounter people who declare themselves the Christ. But the Second Coming has both already happened and is always happening. The fall of the temple could be considered fulfilled the day Jesus died. And as John tells us, the rebuilding of the temple is considered fulfilled three days later.

Meanwhile, earlier passages of the Bible assure us that the Earth is fixed and cannot be moved. So if you feel Earth moving, get that inner ear infection or diabetes checked out.

One of the lies that RE sells you on is "the RE is part of a huge vast galaxy waiting to be explored." But it's not only lifeless because no design is ensuring that the majority (even cold areas with penguins and such) has life, but the actual fact is that only 676 people have purportedly left the Karman Line. Out of 8.1 billion people (non-adjusted count). This means hor most of the public, they aren't VIP enough, and they are stuck looking at a world they don't get to explore.

The real reason they are show this, then, is not to ignite their spirit of adventure, but to utterly crush their sense of pride, similar to believing your country is the biggest in the world than being shown a map of the world where it's a tiny nation surrounded by much bigger lands.

This is also why despite all claims that we can visit Antarctica in tourism, we never get taken to see any of this. Only military and scientists. Again, VIPs. If regular people tried to sail south, they would likely either find out that it is one of nine planes, find out that it has a clear ending, or find out that it stretches out forever. You wouldn't be able to go south around the world.

Might be a bit of a disaster for the penguins, introducing starving Africans.

If you're wondering why I mentioned Southeast Asia...

Because you have to run from overwhelming and demonstrable evidence the heliocentric model is reality. 

Now in regards to the main topic, someone mentioned the sentiment, "Nothing lasts forever, not even the sun." You see, this rather nihilistic sentiment is at the core of this cosmos you have created for yourself. It has its roots, not in secularism, but the same sort of end times fascination that spawned things like Islam and the Watchtower cult.

Wrong again.
It has its routes in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, something very much based upon evidence from the world.

You need magic to counter it.

But you say, what about this passage?

That it is a passage from a crappy fiction book.

Meanwhile, earlier passages of the Bible assure us that the Earth is fixed and cannot be moved.

Which just lets us know the Bible is wrong.

But it's not only lifeless because no design is ensuring that the majority (even cold areas with penguins and such) has life

There is no thing to suggest in either, and you can pretend there is a design in either.

the actual fact is that only 676 people have purportedly left the Karman Line. Out of 8.1 billion people (non-adjusted count).

As opposed to your fantasy, where those people are all liars, and no one has left Earth, and specifically the known regions of this.

This is also why despite all claims that we can visit Antarctica in tourism, we never get taken to see any of this.

You can, you just choose not to.

But notice what you are saying?
That most people are just not VIP enough to go anywhere, that there are large amounts of lands available, just a boat/plane ride away, but you aren't allowed to go, because you aren't special enough.
How is that any less sad than not being able to go because the technology doesn't exist yet?

Either way, you can't go, but in your fantasy, it is because you aren't good enough.

Bumblebriefs,
Nothing lasts forever, not even the sun...Based on nuclear physics, not emotion or religious sentiment. I wish it wasn't so too, but also it's true.
The Bible is a great book with lots of lessons, some pretty weird stuff too. But to take it literally is too much for me. As it is for most people , I think. But if it works for you, more power to you.

Bulinmabriefs144, the old testament was right. The Earth is fixed in the speed of it's rotation and speed of orbit around the sun, and cannot be moved from that (by us puny humans at least). Can you feel yourself moving when you set your car at cruise control and travel at a fixed speed? If you could be honest, the answer would be "no".

The reason only 676 people have left the karman line, is leaving the karman line is very expensive. Perhaps small minded people don't want to see the bigger picture offered by a universe outside the Earth?

A flaterfer commenting on world energy reserves, is priceless! How deep is your flat earth? Care to explain why it gets hotter the deeper you go into the Earth? As for plastic waste, what concern is that of a useless flat earther, whose only concern in life is the shape of the world? Stick to what you know - NOTHING.

Oh, and anyone can take a plane flight over Antarctica and the South pole, anytime they feel like it. No VIP membership needed. No unreasonable expense. No dome to stop anybody. 

Bulinmabriefs144, the old testament was right. The Earth is fixed in the speed of it's rotation and speed of orbit around the sun, and cannot be moved from that (by us puny humans at least). Can you feel yourself moving when you set your car at cruise control and travel at a fixed speed? If you could be honest, the answer would be "no".

Who here is not being honest?

1. Cruise control doesn't just set a car going steadily on a fixed speed. If it did, maybe your analogy might hold, but the cruise controls I've had annoyed the hell out of me to the point where I had to shut them off, as they were constant automatic gasing the car, and impractical for real driving. That is, it doesn't coast along but rather adjusts (poorly), making the ride get me motion sick.
2. In actual fact, you can feel motion whenever velocity changes. If you remember your science classes, velocity is speed AND direction. If you have steady speed at exactly 60 mph, but suddenly do a hard right or even a hairpin turn, even were speed to never go down 1 mph, you would be able to feel whiplash or stomach churn. I know this one personally, having eaten cheese grits before heading down a windy road, and subsequently voided the entire contents of my stomach.
3. TL;DR version: steady speed is not enough. Every turn is felt. Unless you are going as straight as Ryoga Hibiki (literally running offroad and through buildings) you are going to notice a turn.

The Earth is fixed, because everything moves around it. We do not feel movement, because we are not moving! 

Quote

Bulinmabriefs144, the old testament was right. The Earth is fixed in the speed of it's rotation and speed of orbit around the sun, and cannot be moved from that (by us puny humans at least). Can you feel yourself moving when you set your car at cruise control and travel at a fixed speed? If you could be honest, the answer would be "no".

Who here is not being honest?

1. Cruise control doesn't just set a car going steadily on a fixed speed. If it did, maybe your analogy might hold, but the cruise controls I've had annoyed the hell out of me to the point where I had to shut them off, as they were constant automatic gasing the car, and impractical for real driving. That is, it doesn't coast along but rather adjusts (poorly), making the ride get me motion sick.
2. In actual fact, you can feel motion whenever velocity changes. If you remember your science classes, velocity is speed AND direction. If you have steady speed at exactly 60 mph, but suddenly do a hard right or even a hairpin turn, even were speed to never go down 1 mph, you would be able to feel whiplash or stomach churn. I know this one personally, having eaten cheese grits before heading down a windy road, and subsequently voided the entire contents of my stomach.
3. TL;DR version: steady speed is not enough. Every turn is felt. Unless you are going as straight as Ryoga Hibiki (literally running offroad and through buildings) you are going to notice a turn.

The Earth is fixed, because everything moves around it. We do not feel movement, because we are not moving!

The Earth doesn't change velocity or conduct sudden turns, it is more like a racecar at a set speed on an extremely large and smooth oval track, on a constant curve, so your argument is obsolete. The rotation of the Earth is also constant with no changes in velocity. That's why we don't feel the movement.

Have you never been a passenger in a car and tossed a tennis ball up and down? We do not feel the movement because everyone of our molecules stems from the Earth itself. We are walking talking bits of Earth.

So caught up in your own little world, the immediate experience of the world around you, and that bible, aren't you bulinmabriefs144?  You can't see the forest for the trees, or in your case, the globe shape of the earth for your own immediate little world.

Why do you even want to argue this? Why not just settle back into your delusion that the whole world revolves around you, and not worry about the big picture?

The Earth doesn't change velocity or conduct sudden turns, it is more like a racecar at a set speed on an extremely large and smooth oval track, on a constant curve, so your argument is obsolete.

It's always entertaining when people try to be clever. Wrong word choice there.

Obsolete:
1. No longer in use.
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction.
3. Vestigial or rudimentary, especially in comparison with related or ancestral species, as the tailbone of an ape.

You are basically saying that my argument is outdated, rather than simply wrong. "Like, get with the times, we believe this now," is the only sense that that word even works.

But here's the thing. It's not an outdated argument, because there's no such thing. It's an argument that a bunch of suits said was "old", as though that made it wrong. This would be like proving for centuries that plants photosynthesize, having climate activists say they don't, and having 150 years of stupid where people don't realize putting plants in a room makes them breathe cleaner air. Old is old, but arguments can't become obsolete. The Unmoved Mover by Aristotle was mentioned again as late as 1892. Technology can become outmoded. Ideas and philosophy cannot. Why can they not? Re-read the first definition.

1. No longer in use.

So long as ideas are still able to be used, they are still useful. Technology however can be outmoded when you invent something better. Your idea isn't any better, it's just stupid.

For a valid application of the "racecar" idea, we have only to watch an actual car. I was riding in a car with a rubber ball (left over from when kids visited) some two years ago. I put on the seat, watched it roll back and reach a particular spot. This idea of the object "adjusting" to the speed never happened. Every minor turn at the same speed nonetheless made the ball bounce or roll, and particularly wide turns made the ball roll. Whether it slowed down or kept the same speed.

Here is the correct word. Your argument is fallacious. It is built on a fallacy that because arguments are old, they are inherently wrong. On the contrary, if an old argument is still being talked about, it is not settled science no matter how loudly "scientists" scream otherwise (like they do, again, with climate change). It is also fallacious because it built on a begging the question fallacy. You already assume that a racecar behaves as you say, but having driven such courses at a steady speed, I can recall whiplash. It is further fallacious because I have pointed out numerous problems with the actual orbit theory, but here's 10 more.

Problem 1 – The Helio model requires a sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth rotates on its axis in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s daily rotation rate. The consistent Earth rotation rate is inconsistent with the variable rotation rates of other solar system planets. The inconsistency between the slowing rotation rates and the consistent earth rotation rate lends support for the earth in a special place.
Problem 2 – The Helio model requires a yearly orbit around the sun of 365 ¼ days per year without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth moves around the sun in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s yearly orbit rate around the sun. The long term, consistent Earth orbit rate is inconsistent with the universal causes acting throughout the universe to cause a long term decay in the earth’s orbit velocity.
Problem 3 – NASA scientists calculate that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate. The models NASA use, assume the earth rotates, and calculate the energy in those events and then calculate the deceleration of the earth’s rotation. There are about 1,450,000 earthquakes every year. About 25,000 have a magnitude of 4 to 9 on the Rictor scale. If these events slow the earth rotation rate every year, by 0.5 microseconds per major earthquake event, then over 10,000 years, and 250 million earthquake events, the earth rotation rate should have slowed by about 2 minutes. Going back 1 million years the earth rotation rate changes by 200 minutes. 10 million years: 2000 minutes, 100 million years:20,000 minutes. 200 million: 40,000 minutes, which means the Earth would have a rotation rate of 12 hours. Go back 4.5 billion years and the Earth would spin 10 times per second.
The problem is that very old sun clocks indicate the earth’s rotation rate has not changed by minutes over thousands of years. Hence the claim that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate is adverse to very old sun dials. If there is no practical evidence for the change in Earth’s rotation rate due to tsunamis and earthquakes then the Newtonian based models that assume the Earth rotates daily are invalidated. If invalidated then the Helio model is invalidated.
Problem 4 – Heliocentrism is based upon the Copernican principle, which says there is no special location in the universe. Hence the earth must rotate around the sun, just as all the other planets are thought to rotate around the sun. Similarly the local Milky Way is thought to be just one of many galaxies within the universe. According to the Copernican principle, the Milky Way is only an insignificant galaxy amongst all the other galaxies in the universe. Yet WMAP shows the universe is aligned with the earth, having an octopole and quadrupole perpendicular to the ecliptic. According to Dragan Huterer, the universe is aligned with the solar system (Astronomy, December 2007, 38-39). The alignment of the universe with the solar system is a major breach of the Copernican principle (CP). As the CP has been invalidated, the Heliocentric model no longer has the CP has an assumed principle to model the earth orbiting the sun. Hence the Helio model is a model founded upon an invalidated principle, which invalidates the Helio model.
Problem 5 – The Helio model says the Earth’s velocity in orbit around the sun varies over the year. The orbit velocity changes without any explanation given within Newtonian mechanics for how the Earth’s orbit velocity changes, other than to comply with Kepler’s laws derived from orbital observations. As there is no physical mechanism to cause the earth’s change in velocity during the Earth’s orbit around the sun, then here is no certitude that the Earth actually does accelerate and decelerate around the sun as assumed within the Heliocentric model. As an empirical based model is only as certain as its least certain component, and there is no mechanism and no certitude of the cause of the variable Earth velocity, then the Helio model is most uncertain. And what is most uncertain is not the preferred model. Hence the Helio model is not the preferred model.
Problem 6 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun requires a fictitious centrifugal force acting within the Earth for the Newtonian model to account for the Earth’s orbit around the sun. The fictitious centrifugal force has no connection with the physical properties of the mechanical system. As there are no physical properties of the mechanical system within the Helio model, then there is no certitude that the Helio model is a correct measure of the local solar system motions. Hence the Helio model is really only a Newtonian base, physical force fiction, without any physical mechanism to prefer the Helio model over any other competing model.
Problem 7 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun infers a preferred reference frame whereby the sun is the local mass that controls the orbital motions of the other planets. The preferred reference frame at the sun contradicts relativity theory that teaches there is no preferred reference frame. As Helio theory contradicts an accepted theory of motion, Helio theory is either invalid, or inconsistently applied with a principle of relativity theory.
Problem 8 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun is said to follow Kepler’s laws for elliptical orbits within the Helio model. The Helio model is said to be the preferred model, for the model is said to have removed the need for Ptolemy’s epicycles in the Geo model. Yet Kepler’s laws applied to the elliptical orbits require an epicycle relative to the orbiting planets circular, deferent orbit swept out when centred upon the orbit centre of the deferent (see pictures below). The alleged absurdity of epicycles in the Ptolemy’s model is replaced by an apparently equally absurd Kepler modelled based epicycle. The use of the epicycle within the Kepler model indicates the Kepler model is not geometrically superior to the Ptolemy model. For the apparent absurdity of the epicycle is used in both the ancient Geo and more modern Helio models.


Problem 9 – The WMAP data demonstrates the Copernican Principle is invalid. Hence for the Helio model to be the preferred model, the model requires the application of an invalidated model. Hence if Helio is a preferred model, Helio is preferred against the scientific evidence that says the Helio is based upon a false principle. Hence the Helio model is in principle unscientific.
Problem 10 – The Helio model of Copernicus was introduced over Ptolemy’s model because the planets orbital motions were observed to be non-circular. The non-circular orbits were replaced by elliptical orbits, yet within the Helio model, the Earth neither orbits in a circular, nor elliptical orbit. For the Earth is gravitationally linked to the Earth-moon barycentre, whereby the Earth cannot orbit the sun in an ellipse. Therefore the motive to change from the Geo model of Ptolemy to the Helio model of Copernicus does not translate into a clearer understanding of what sort of orbit the Earth is doing around the sun. As the Helio model does not provide any clear evidence for the Earth’s elliptical orbit as a better alternative to the Ptolemy model, the Helio model has no strong basis to be the preferred model.

Since this was literally "borrowed" from another forum, I don't expect you to read it, but the point is, motion is transferred at every turn you make. Earth's orbit would have to be arrow-straight with the sun orbiting the Earth for us not to feel it moving at a steady speed. Like a car going on a straight road, not a race track.

But don't take my word for it! Let's find out from actual racecar drivers!

You notice they don't cut in suddenly at full speed? That's because what you saw at the start with plowing against the wall would happen. Steady speed plus turn isn't steady speed. If a real racecar tried to follow the sort of rigid curve you describe without slowing, it would be a mess.

Every turn, every skid, moves the car and the driver. Exactly like that ball I mentioned earlier.
It's not a change in a speed that makes the difference. Change in velocity is change in directional momentum.

It's always entertaining when people try to be clever. Wrong word choice there.

Like you trying to act like FE isn’t soundly debunked?

In the flat earth delusion.  The sun would have to turn relative north after passing California, or right for a person looking west out to sea.  The sun would have to continually turn to make its circular circuit above the FE delusion.  The sun doesn’t do anything require for a flat earth.  Where you can’t explain how the sun and the moon that physically blocks the sun from view during a solar eclipse stays in orbit in atmosphere.

. Change in velocity is change in directional momentum.

I was stationed on a submarine.  If the submarine made a turn that took 365 days to make one complete circle, you wouldn’t feel the submarine turn. 

Another failed bulmabriefs144 distraction.

Where we know the moon is a physical object by the way it blocks the sun during a solar eclipse.  How would a lunar eclipse work on a flat earth.  It wouldn’t.  Flat earth solidly debunked and dead on arrival. 

1. Cruise control doesn't just set a car going steadily on a fixed speed. If it did, maybe your analogy might hold, but the cruise controls I've had annoyed the hell out of me to the point where I had to shut them off, as they were constant automatic gasing the car, and impractical for real driving. That is, it doesn't coast along but rather adjusts (poorly), making the ride get me motion sick.

You must have had really shit cruise control then.
Must be from all your shit, second hand $5 cars.

2. In actual fact, you can feel motion whenever velocity changes.

Actually, no you can't.
What you feel is a force applied across your body.
And that change needs to be significant enough for you to feel it.

e.g. if a pilot is good, they can have a plane accelerate, slow down and even turn without you feeling it, because they keep the forces low.

but suddenly do a hard right

And what if instead of that, you are gradually doing a right, constantly, so it takes an entire day to complete the circle?
Will you feel it then?

We do not feel movement

Because we don't have any senses that can feel movement.

But here's the thing. It's not an outdated argument, because there's no such thing.

There is such a thing.
An argument based upon a premise which is later found to be wrong is an outdated argument.

e.g. if people argue that Earth must be still because we don't feel it moving, but then it is shown that we don't feel motion in general, then that argument is outdated because the premise has since been refuted.

But your argument isn't obsolete, it is just pure BS.

Every minor turn at the same speed

So continually turning back and forth?
Not a smooth motion?
Try starting in a massive turn, one that takes 24 hours to complete a full turn, then start your observation and see if you can see the ball move to show that turn.

if an old argument is still being talked about, it is not settled science

A bunch of liars like you bringing up refuted BS and being unable to defend it doesn't mean it isn't settled science.

but having driven such courses at a steady speed

And when have you driven such courses?
Courses where they are constantly turning at the same rate?

It is further fallacious because I have pointed out numerous problems with the actual orbit theory

No, you haven't. Instead you continually lie, entirely incapable of showing a single fault.

The Helio model requires a sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds without fail for as long as records have been kept.

No, it doesn't.
That is yet another blatant lie from you.
It is know that gravitational interactions with the moon are slowing down Earth's rate of rotation.
There is nothing in the HC model that demands it rotates at the exact same rate for all time.
Instead, this is just the current rate.

The Helio model requires a yearly orbit around the sun of 365 ¼ days per year without fail for as long as records have been kept.

No, it doesn't.
Again, this is just the current rate.
And that is the tropical year, not the sidereal year.

NASA scientists calculate that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate.

Not so much a lie as a dishonest representation.
Earthquakes (which cause tsunamis) as well as more general motions in Earth alter Earth's angular momentum which changes its rate of rotation.
This do not always slow Earth. They can either slow it down or speed it up.

The problem is that very old sun clocks indicate the earth’s rotation rate has not changed by minutes over thousands of years.

This is an entirely circular argument.
Sun clocks, being based upon Earth's rotation, are not able to measure variations in Earth's rotation.
That is like using an hourglass to measure if that hourglass has variation in its time.

If there is no practical evidence for the change in Earth’s rotation rate due to tsunamis and earthquakes then the Newtonian based models that assume the Earth rotates daily are invalidated.

Why?
That is just pure BS.
The lack of evidence for earthquakes changing Earth's rotation doesn't magically invalidate the entire model.

Heliocentrism is based upon the Copernican principle

No it isn't, so another lie.
In fact, it goes directly against it.
The original HC model placed Earth at the centre.

Yet WMAP shows the universe is aligned with the earth

No, it doesn't.
Instead it shows an angular isotropy, with no clear indication of what is causing it.

The orbit velocity changes without any explanation given within Newtonian mechanics for how the Earth’s orbit velocity changes

And another lie.
This change is a direct consequence of gravity and an elliptical orbit.
You can compare any point in an elliptical orbit with that of a circular orbit.
But lets just consider the 2 extremes.
When Earth is at its furthest from the sun, and going the slowest, then it is going slower than the required speed for a circular orbit. This means it starts to "fall" towards the sun, with its acceleration towards the sun too great for that circular orbit so it curves away and speeds up as it does so with it starting to move "down".
When Earth is at its closest, it is going too fast for a circular orbit, so gravity isn't strong enough there to pull it in a circular orbit, so it starts to go outwards, slowing down as it does.

There are also gravitational interactions with the moon that periodically speed up and slow Earth down depending on if the moon is ahead or behind Earth.

So yet another pathetic lie from you.

the Earth’s orbit around the sun requires a fictitious centrifugal force

No it doesn't.
Viewing it in a particular non-inertial reference frame does.
If you view it in an inertial reference frame, all you need is gravity to accelerate Earth towards the sun to make an orbit.

the Earth’s orbit around the sun infers a preferred reference frame whereby the sun is the local mass that controls the orbital motions of the other planets.

This is simply that the sun has the vast majority of the mass of the solar system.
But it is still not perfectly fixed.
So yet again, no problem.

Yet Kepler’s laws applied to the elliptical orbits require an epicycle

No they don't.
Just another outright lie.

The WMAP data

Already dealt with before.

For the Earth is gravitationally linked to the Earth-moon barycentre, whereby the Earth cannot orbit the sun in an ellipse.

And for the most part, that variation is negligible.
But this is not a problem.

So not 10 problems, 10 more pathetic lies from you.

every turn you make

Again, try it with a single continuous turn.

Quote

The Earth doesn't change velocity or conduct sudden turns, it is more like a racecar at a set speed on an extremely large and smooth oval track, on a constant curve, so your argument is obsolete.

It's always entertaining when people try to be clever. Wrong word choice there.

Obsolete:
1. No longer in use.
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction.
3. Vestigial or rudimentary, especially in comparison with related or ancestral species, as the tailbone of an ape.

You are basically saying that my argument is outdated, rather than simply wrong. "Like, get with the times, we believe this now," is the only sense that that word even works.

But here's the thing. It's not an outdated argument, because there's no such thing. It's an argument that a bunch of suits said was "old", as though that made it wrong. This would be like proving for centuries that plants photosynthesize, having climate activists say they don't, and having 150 years of stupid where people don't realize putting plants in a room makes them breathe cleaner air. Old is old, but arguments can't become obsolete. The Unmoved Mover by Aristotle was mentioned again as late as 1892. Technology can become outmoded. Ideas and philosophy cannot. Why can they not? Re-read the first definition.

Quote

1. No longer in use.

So long as ideas are still able to be used, they are still useful. Technology however can be outmoded when you invent something better. Your idea isn't any better, it's just stupid.

For a valid application of the "racecar" idea, we have only to watch an actual car. I was riding in a car with a rubber ball (left over from when kids visited) some two years ago. I put on the seat, watched it roll back and reach a particular spot. This idea of the object "adjusting" to the speed never happened. Every minor turn at the same speed nonetheless made the ball bounce or roll, and particularly wide turns made the ball roll. Whether it slowed down or kept the same speed.

Here is the correct word. Your argument is fallacious. It is built on a fallacy that because arguments are old, they are inherently wrong. On the contrary, if an old argument is still being talked about, it is not settled science no matter how loudly "scientists" scream otherwise (like they do, again, with climate change). It is also fallacious because it built on a begging the question fallacy. You already assume that a racecar behaves as you say, but having driven such courses at a steady speed, I can recall whiplash. It is further fallacious because I have pointed out numerous problems with the actual orbit theory, but here's 10 more.

Quote

Problem 1 – The Helio model requires a sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth rotates on its axis in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s daily rotation rate. The consistent Earth rotation rate is inconsistent with the variable rotation rates of other solar system planets. The inconsistency between the slowing rotation rates and the consistent earth rotation rate lends support for the earth in a special place.
Problem 2 – The Helio model requires a yearly orbit around the sun of 365 ¼ days per year without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth moves around the sun in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s yearly orbit rate around the sun. The long term, consistent Earth orbit rate is inconsistent with the universal causes acting throughout the universe to cause a long term decay in the earth’s orbit velocity.
Problem 3 – NASA scientists calculate that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate. The models NASA use, assume the earth rotates, and calculate the energy in those events and then calculate the deceleration of the earth’s rotation. There are about 1,450,000 earthquakes every year. About 25,000 have a magnitude of 4 to 9 on the Rictor scale. If these events slow the earth rotation rate every year, by 0.5 microseconds per major earthquake event, then over 10,000 years, and 250 million earthquake events, the earth rotation rate should have slowed by about 2 minutes. Going back 1 million years the earth rotation rate changes by 200 minutes. 10 million years: 2000 minutes, 100 million years:20,000 minutes. 200 million: 40,000 minutes, which means the Earth would have a rotation rate of 12 hours. Go back 4.5 billion years and the Earth would spin 10 times per second.
The problem is that very old sun clocks indicate the earth’s rotation rate has not changed by minutes over thousands of years. Hence the claim that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate is adverse to very old sun dials. If there is no practical evidence for the change in Earth’s rotation rate due to tsunamis and earthquakes then the Newtonian based models that assume the Earth rotates daily are invalidated. If invalidated then the Helio model is invalidated.
Problem 4 – Heliocentrism is based upon the Copernican principle, which says there is no special location in the universe. Hence the earth must rotate around the sun, just as all the other planets are thought to rotate around the sun. Similarly the local Milky Way is thought to be just one of many galaxies within the universe. According to the Copernican principle, the Milky Way is only an insignificant galaxy amongst all the other galaxies in the universe. Yet WMAP shows the universe is aligned with the earth, having an octopole and quadrupole perpendicular to the ecliptic. According to Dragan Huterer, the universe is aligned with the solar system (Astronomy, December 2007, 38-39). The alignment of the universe with the solar system is a major breach of the Copernican principle (CP). As the CP has been invalidated, the Heliocentric model no longer has the CP has an assumed principle to model the earth orbiting the sun. Hence the Helio model is a model founded upon an invalidated principle, which invalidates the Helio model.
Problem 5 – The Helio model says the Earth’s velocity in orbit around the sun varies over the year. The orbit velocity changes without any explanation given within Newtonian mechanics for how the Earth’s orbit velocity changes, other than to comply with Kepler’s laws derived from orbital observations. As there is no physical mechanism to cause the earth’s change in velocity during the Earth’s orbit around the sun, then here is no certitude that the Earth actually does accelerate and decelerate around the sun as assumed within the Heliocentric model. As an empirical based model is only as certain as its least certain component, and there is no mechanism and no certitude of the cause of the variable Earth velocity, then the Helio model is most uncertain. And what is most uncertain is not the preferred model. Hence the Helio model is not the preferred model.
Problem 6 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun requires a fictitious centrifugal force acting within the Earth for the Newtonian model to account for the Earth’s orbit around the sun. The fictitious centrifugal force has no connection with the physical properties of the mechanical system. As there are no physical properties of the mechanical system within the Helio model, then there is no certitude that the Helio model is a correct measure of the local solar system motions. Hence the Helio model is really only a Newtonian base, physical force fiction, without any physical mechanism to prefer the Helio model over any other competing model.
Problem 7 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun infers a preferred reference frame whereby the sun is the local mass that controls the orbital motions of the other planets. The preferred reference frame at the sun contradicts relativity theory that teaches there is no preferred reference frame. As Helio theory contradicts an accepted theory of motion, Helio theory is either invalid, or inconsistently applied with a principle of relativity theory.
Problem 8 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun is said to follow Kepler’s laws for elliptical orbits within the Helio model. The Helio model is said to be the preferred model, for the model is said to have removed the need for Ptolemy’s epicycles in the Geo model. Yet Kepler’s laws applied to the elliptical orbits require an epicycle relative to the orbiting planets circular, deferent orbit swept out when centred upon the orbit centre of the deferent (see pictures below). The alleged absurdity of epicycles in the Ptolemy’s model is replaced by an apparently equally absurd Kepler modelled based epicycle. The use of the epicycle within the Kepler model indicates the Kepler model is not geometrically superior to the Ptolemy model. For the apparent absurdity of the epicycle is used in both the ancient Geo and more modern Helio models.


Problem 9 – The WMAP data demonstrates the Copernican Principle is invalid. Hence for the Helio model to be the preferred model, the model requires the application of an invalidated model. Hence if Helio is a preferred model, Helio is preferred against the scientific evidence that says the Helio is based upon a false principle. Hence the Helio model is in principle unscientific.
Problem 10 – The Helio model of Copernicus was introduced over Ptolemy’s model because the planets orbital motions were observed to be non-circular. The non-circular orbits were replaced by elliptical orbits, yet within the Helio model, the Earth neither orbits in a circular, nor elliptical orbit. For the Earth is gravitationally linked to the Earth-moon barycentre, whereby the Earth cannot orbit the sun in an ellipse. Therefore the motive to change from the Geo model of Ptolemy to the Helio model of Copernicus does not translate into a clearer understanding of what sort of orbit the Earth is doing around the sun. As the Helio model does not provide any clear evidence for the Earth’s elliptical orbit as a better alternative to the Ptolemy model, the Helio model has no strong basis to be the preferred model.

Since this was literally "borrowed" from another forum, I don't expect you to read it, but the point is, motion is transferred at every turn you make. Earth's orbit would have to be arrow-straight with the sun orbiting the Earth for us not to feel it moving at a steady speed. Like a car going on a straight road, not a race track.

But don't take my word for it! Let's find out from actual racecar drivers!

You notice they don't cut in suddenly at full speed? That's because what you saw at the start with plowing against the wall would happen. Steady speed plus turn isn't steady speed. If a real racecar tried to follow the sort of rigid curve you describe without slowing, it would be a mess.

Every turn, every skid, moves the car and the driver. Exactly like that ball I mentioned earlier.
It's not a change in a speed that makes the difference. Change in velocity is change in directional momentum.

Lol! You know what else is entertaining? Watching an insipid snivelling flat earth punk like you trying to be clever! Yeah, I used the word "obsolete" when I could have used the predictable word, "invalid". Your argument however, has been obsolete for what, fifty centuries? Five centuries ago, we all knew earth was a globe at least, but misrakenly thought we were the centre of the universe, stationary, while everything else revolved around us. It's obsolete because it's fucking useless. But naturally, it is also invalid.

When I used the racetrack and racecar analogy to earth and Earth's orbit, did you notice I said the racetrack would have to be an extremely large oval? Well, I meant, like hundreds of times larger than any existing racetrack, but you aren't intelligent enough to cotton on to that, are you chum? But, of course, ol Dumbo nevertheless tries to outwit me with a small racetrack with tight bends. You have quite a heavy load of bull in ya briefs these days, bulinmabriefs144!

Oh, and if you're going to post a direct quote, tell us where you got it from. In this case, some dickhead who thinks dark matter and dark energy along with distant galaxies should slow the Earth down. The rest of the quote is a mountain of shit because it ignores the fact Earth has been proven to be a globe in space a thousand times over.

We all "knew." That's another word you have misused. Off to a great record are we? To know something is to have unassailable proof. But as you can see, 500 later, people are still assailing that "proof."

If PT Barnum said the same things as Copernicus or Galileo, should we believe it? Or don't you know a sham when you see one?

When I used the racetrack and racecar analogy to earth and Earth's orbit, did you notice I said the racetrack would have to be an extremely large oval? Well, I meant, like hundreds of times larger than any existing racetrack, but you aren't intelligent enough to cotton on to that, are you chum?

 "Chum" is a word for fish. And for friends. It's not a word you use when insulting people. 0 for 3 here. And making bigger ovals doesn't automatically make a faulty theory suddenly work. Neither will insulting me here. There are some people who can manage to piss me off, and some people whose criticism I don't care about. Guess which pile you're in?

 Did you notice in the racecar video, they showed skid from momentum? As object moves on a path at steady speed, the more it skids, the more off track it goes. The sun goes in a circular orbit around the Earth as ordained by God. In 500 years (since we're using that number), sundials have been accurate. In fact, there is a 3200 year old sundial. You don't have to adjust its position. In spring and fall, the sun moves to the equator. In winter and summer, it moves between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. To be precise, it's not a circular path but a subtle infinite spiral. Something that Fibonacci would eat up, a spiral that yearly goes in then out then back in.

You drive a car in a ellipse path, the racer has to actively adjust for turns, as momentum is a real bitch. The more elliptical the path, the larger the apex of the turn.
 A circle requires simple 6° (or 1/60 of a 360° circle) turns at regular intervals. A clock can do it all day, and does. At a regular speed, the sun can do this all day long. In fact it does, until it reaches the 180° point of our view, whereupon it sets.
An ellipse goes straight line, straight line, straight line, HAIRPIN TURN, straight line, straight line...

The Earth doesn't change velocity or conduct sudden turns, it is more like a racecar at a set speed on an extremely large and smooth oval track

Wasn't it you that said this? But the very definition of an oval is sudden turns! A circle has regular incremental turns. So the more the RE adjust their model to be elliptical, the more false this becomes. The sun's path is like a pendulum. Sundials show this.

Does that look like an oval to you? Year after year, this crude device keeps solar time. It doesn't have to adjust for sidereal days, it doesn't have to adjust for wide oval orbit, because these things aren't real!
 Maintaining a steady speed on an ellipse is a pipe dream, and people telling you that when you see the sun move across the Earth, you are really seeing the Earth move along that kinda of path are part of a hoax. Either they are useful idiots, or the hoaxers themselves.

Here you go.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 19, 2024, 01:20:36 PM

Not all climate change deniers are flat earthers, but are any flat earther not climate change deniers?

Most climate change deniers are angry globularists.

Is that just because flat earthers are very outnumbered?  Us angry globularists probably have more of everyone.  More lefties, more righties, more hairdressers, more rock fans, more people who hate Marvel films, etc. 

I cant find any estimates about proportion of flat earthers who are climate change deniers compared to everyone else, but did find confirmation that not all are.  So now I wonder how does that work?

What parts of climate science are actually compatible with flat earth beliefs?  The greenhouse effect, which is all about how much heat is radiated from earth into space?  The satellite data collected by agencies such as NASA and ESA?  Anything about modern meteorology?  The geological record including Antarctica ice cores?  The round earth General Circulation Models?

Sorry if getting off topic.  Feel free to move post.

You flat earth folks are a sad bunch.
You live in a round flat terrarium with a plastic lid? No outer space to wonder at. No universe filled with amazing stars and planets and boundless numbers of galaxies.
A thing saw awesome it's difficult to even try to comprehend.

I prefer reality to living on a pie plate with a plastic dome.
Feeling sorry for you who are that disillusioned.
I suggest a drive into the desert and stare at the night sky until the sun comes up over the horizon.

Hi, Son of Master...meet you on the level (wink,wink).

Really too bad you have significant trouble conceptualizing the process of geometric translation of celestial sphere coordinates to the flat earth plane below.

The ancients had no such trouble, thereby giving us the wonders of such places as Giza and Tenochtitlan.

Hopefully, you'll be able to see the light one day.

Is that just because flat earthers are very outnumbered?

I suspect this is more the case. However, it's kinda like that math problem where A is equal to B, but B is not necessarily equal to A. Or "all Nazis are Jew-haters, but not all Jew-haters are Nazis." You can have equivalence that only goes one way.

In general, flat Earthers are more likely as a group to dispute climate change than the overall population, as they've already started disputing another narrative (RE).

 Did you notice in the racecar video,

I can do a slow lane change where you can’t feel the change in direction.

Infact, people walking in the dark will think they are walking a straight line and actually be twisting and circling back on their path and will not sense the change in directions.

And which is a total misrepresentation of the example of a submarine taking a whole 24 hours to complete a 360 circle and you will not sense the constant minute change in direction.  Hence, why submarines have more sensitive navigation systems than human senses.

Which reminds me of something.

When Flat Earthers Spent $20,000 Trying To Prove Earth Is Flat And Accidentally Proved It's Round
"What I just told you was confidential"

https://amp.triplem.com.au/story/flat-earthers-spend-20-000-trying-to-prove-earth-is-flat-accidentally-prove-it-s-round-129953

One of those Flat Earthers is Bob Knodel, who hosts a YouTube channel entirely dedicated to the theory and who is one of the team relying on a $20,000 laser gyroscope to prove the Earth doesn't actually rotate.

Except... It does.

"What we found is, when we turned on that gyroscope, we found that we were picking up a drift," Knodel explains. "A 15-degree per hour drift.

"Now, obviously we were taken aback by that - 'Wow, that's kind of a problem.'

"We obviously were not willing to accept that, and so we started looking for easy to disprove it was actually registering the motion of the Earth."

You know what they say: If your experiment proves you wrong, just disregard the results!

"We don't want to blow this, you know?" Knodel then says to another Flat Earther. "When you've got $20,000 in this freaking gyro.

"If we dumped what we found right now, it would be bad? It would be bad.

"What I just told you was confidential."

If you're keen to see this scene - and so much more - Behind the Curve is available on Netflix now.

Like the earth was rotating about it’s axis ever 24 hours…

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Flat earth killed.  Dead on arrival.

 Did you notice

Notice what bulmabriefs144?  That you really screwed the pooch on this one, and didn’t think in reality humans have a poor sense of picking up change in direction like why a person will walk circles in the dark.  Why things like submarines and aircraft at night need guidance systems?  And some of those guidance systems have drift because of earth’s rotation. 

Flat earth dead.  Unless you want to lie more and more bulmabriefs144

I see another attempt to detail the thread again. 

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 19, 2024, 03:49:58 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 19, 2024, 01:20:36 PM

Not all climate change deniers are flat earthers, but are any flat earther not climate change deniers?

Most climate change deniers are angry globularists.

Is that just because flat earthers are very outnumbered?  Us angry globularists probably have more of everyone.  More lefties, more righties, more hairdressers, more rock fans, more people who hate Marvel films, etc. 

I cant find any estimates about proportion of flat earthers who are climate change deniers compared to everyone else, but did find confirmation that not all are.  So now I wonder how does that work?

What parts of climate science are actually compatible with flat earth beliefs?  The greenhouse effect, which is all about how much heat is radiated from earth into space?  The satellite data collected by agencies such as NASA and ESA?  Anything about modern meteorology?  The geological record including Antarctica ice cores?  The round earth General Circulation Models?

Sorry if getting off topic.  Feel free to move post.

Don't worry about getting off topic, I mean, look at the title of the thread.

Anyway, I imagine that FE are just as likely to believe or not believe in anything the same as everyone else. You can believe the climate is changing, but disagree about how. Just like there many FETs, there could be many climate change theories. For example, the dome would be great for trapping heat. Satellites don't exist! My favorite meteorologist was Gary England (RIP). I imagine round earth general circulation models are out of the question.

I have noticed that it's difficult to find things I used to be able to look up quickly on Google. I think they are suppressing anything "conspiracy theory". 

I can do a slow lane change where you can’t feel the change in direction.

Huh. Earlier you were convinced that you could move thousands of mph (specifically 66,620 mph) on an elliptical orbit without feeling the effects. Now, you're downgrading this to a "lane change" at "slow speed".  A right turn at 60 mph without breaking will give you whiplash. That's typically between a 45 and 90 degree turn, unless you have gradual turns. An ellipse, however?

I marked the turn with a line. That's about a 180 degree turn. If you were to go at that speed at the (quite literally Satanic) speed of 66,620 mph, you should not just have whiplash but entire body ripped apart. Even at 60 mph that kinda turn is hard on your body. More so at the 200 mph or so that some racecars do. And these people know what they are doing!

But yes, a hairpin turn is 100% the same as switching lanes at slow speed.

Off to a great record are we? To know something is to have unassailable proof. But as you can see, 500 later, people are still assailing that "proof."

People like you throwing out the same refuted lies doesn't mean we don't know.

And making bigger ovals doesn't automatically make a faulty theory suddenly work.

It makes your refutation BS.

Did you notice in the racecar video

Do you mean the one showing a small track, with the car not making a smooth turn?
So the one that just further demonstrates your dishonesty when you appeal to it?

How about we try this one?


Notice how when they pour the wine it goes flying to the window? Oh wait it doesn't.
Notice how when they aren't holding the glass it skids sideways and smashed into the window? Oh wait, again it doesn't.

Instead, notice how other than the slowly rotating view, there is no noticeable indication of motion at all.

According to your dishonest, delusional BS, someone inside this should conclude that the restaurant is stationary and the entire Earth is rotating around them.

sundials have been accurate.

Again, this is a circular argument.
People used the sun to determine time, so that was the standard.
If you want to use solar time, you use a shadow from the sun.
This is not capable of showing any variation in solar time.
If instead you compare a sundial to almost any decent modern clock (e.g. quartz oscillator, or even some decent pendulum clocks), we see the solar day drifts throughout the year.
This is because a solar day is not the same as a mean solar day.
Instead solar time drifts by over 30 minutes compared to mean solar time.

This is even captured in photos like an analemma.
Further proof of the eccentricity and tilt.

A circle requires simple 6° (or 1/60 of a 360° circle) turns at regular intervals.

No, a circle requires a continuous turn.
It isn't a turn at regular intervals.

A clock can do it all day, and does. At a regular speed

And Earth can do it to.

An ellipse goes straight line, straight line, straight line, HAIRPIN TURN, straight line, straight line...

No, it doesn't.
An ellipse does not have a straight line.

Please point out the straight line in this ellipse:

But the very definition of an oval is sudden turns!

No, it isn't. There are a few equivalent definitions. The simplest is a circle which has been elongated.

A circle has regular incremental turns.

No, both are a continuous turn.

Year after year, this crude device keeps solar time.

No, that crude device defines solar time. It doesn't magically keep it.

It doesn't have to adjust for sidereal days, it doesn't have to adjust for wide oval orbit

Because it sets solar time.
But if you want to use that to determine what the civil time is, i.e. one using 24 hour days rather than actual solar days which vary in length throughout the year, then you DO need to take into consideration the orbit and the tile. And if you want to know when a star other than the sun will be in a particular location in the sky, you will need to take into consideration the difference between solar days and sidereal days.

Because these things are real, and your lies wont change that.

people telling you that when you see the sun move across the Earth, you are really seeing the Earth move along that kinda of path are part of a hoax.

No, they just aren't as stupid or dishonest as you.

Again, as a comparison that would be like saying people telling you that restaurant is revolving instead of Earth revolving around it are part of a hoax.

You aren't useful. But you certainly act like an idiot.

that math problem where A is equal to B, but B is not necessarily equal to A.

If A is equal to B, then B is equal to A.
You are thinking the logical problem of if A then B, does not mean if B then A.
Or to put it differently, that just because A implies B does not mean that B implies A.

In general, flat Earthers are more likely as a group to dispute climate change than the overall population

As they have already started rejecting reality.
Just like they are more likely to cling to other fiction.

Now, you're downgrading this to a "lane change" at "slow speed".

No, they said a slow lane change.
i.e. the lane change takes a while.
For example, imagine turning at such a slow rate that it takes you an entire year to complete the circle?

A right turn at 60 mph without breaking will give you whiplash.

And another lie.

A very sharp right turn which you rapidly enter and leave will give you whiplash.
A gradual turn, even at 1000 miles per hour wont do anything.

You even admit this yourself.

unless you have gradual turns.

You mean like a turn 6371 km in radius for the daily rotation of Earth, or a turn 150 000 000 km in radius for the orbit?
A turn that takes just less than 24 hours to go a complete 360 degrees for the rotation of Earth, or one that takes an entire year for the orbit?

That certainly sounds gradual to me.

But no, not to liars like you because you are desperate to use whatever lies you can to pretend reality is wrong.
That is just the sad little world you have made for yourself.

That's about a 180 degree turn. If you were to go at that speed at the (quite literally Satanic) speed of 66,620 mph, you should not just have whiplash but entire body ripped apart.

If it was at that tiny scale, yes.
But if it was at the scale of Earth's orbit, no.

Really too bad you have significant trouble conceptualizing the process of geometric translation of celestial sphere coordinates to the flat earth plane below.

The ancients had no such trouble, thereby giving us the wonders of such places as Giza and Tenochtitlan.

The ancients didn't have such trouble, because they were happy for the sun to set for everyone at once, because they were happy believing the entire Earth was just the tiny portion they lived in.
They didn't need to have different time zones.
They didn't need to explain how it can be night here but be day somewhere else.

They didn't need to pretend everything stayed above them.

That is why some of these models, with a celestial sphere, have far more in common with the RE model of today than the FE models of today.

Ask them why you can't see the sun at night, and the answer is equivalent to saying Earth is blocking the view. They have it go below Earth so Earth blocks the view.
FEers need to invent all sorts of delusional BS to pretend it works.

Hopefully, you'll be able to see the light one day.

We all "knew." That's another word you have misused. Off to a great record are we? To know something is to have unassailable proof. But as you can see, 500 later, people are still assailing that "proof."

If PT Barnum said the same things as Copernicus or Galileo, should we believe it? Or don't you know a sham when you see one?

Quote

When I used the racetrack and racecar analogy to earth and Earth's orbit, did you notice I said the racetrack would have to be an extremely large oval? Well, I meant, like hundreds of times larger than any existing racetrack, but you aren't intelligent enough to cotton on to that, are you chum?

 "Chum" is a word for fish. And for friends. It's not a word you use when insulting people. 0 for 3 here. And making bigger ovals doesn't automatically make a faulty theory suddenly work. Neither will insulting me here. There are some people who can manage to piss me off, and some people whose criticism I don't care about. Guess which pile you're in?

 Did you notice in the racecar video, they showed skid from momentum? As object moves on a path at steady speed, the more it skids, the more off track it goes. The sun goes in a circular orbit around the Earth as ordained by God. In 500 years (since we're using that number), sundials have been accurate. In fact, there is a 3200 year old sundial. You don't have to adjust its position. In spring and fall, the sun moves to the equator. In winter and summer, it moves between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. To be precise, it's not a circular path but a subtle infinite spiral. Something that Fibonacci would eat up, a spiral that yearly goes in then out then back in.

You drive a car in a ellipse path, the racer has to actively adjust for turns, as momentum is a real bitch. The more elliptical the path, the larger the apex of the turn.
 A circle requires simple 6° (or 1/60 of a 360° circle) turns at regular intervals. A clock can do it all day, and does. At a regular speed, the sun can do this all day long. In fact it does, until it reaches the 180° point of our view, whereupon it sets.
An ellipse goes straight line, straight line, straight line, HAIRPIN TURN, straight line, straight line...

Quote

The Earth doesn't change velocity or conduct sudden turns, it is more like a racecar at a set speed on an extremely large and smooth oval track

Wasn't it you that said this? But the very definition of an oval is sudden turns! A circle has regular incremental turns. So the more the RE adjust their model to be elliptical, the more false this becomes. The sun's path is like a pendulum. Sundials show this.

Does that look like an oval to you? Year after year, this crude device keeps solar time. It doesn't have to adjust for sidereal days, it doesn't have to adjust for wide oval orbit, because these things aren't real!
 Maintaining a steady speed on an ellipse is a pipe dream, and people telling you that when you see the sun move across the Earth, you are really seeing the Earth move along that kinda of path are part of a hoax. Either they are useful idiots, or the hoaxers themselves.

Here you go.

Is truth typing totally out of the question for you? We all do know the Earth is a globe with unassailable proof, and have so, for fifty centuries. People like yourself prefer to live
in denial.

I also know my posts piss you off, otherwise you wouldn't consistently cherry pick, which parts of my posts you respond to. So, more bull from you.

See, now you are trying to be clever again, (which doesn't suit you), by comparing the unique physics of a racecar on a racetrack to a planet in an elliptical orbit through space around a sun. One has all sorts of physics including traction, racetrack camber, air resistance. Can you guess which one?

The big factor for you to take away is both the race car and earth can be on an elliptical path. We can all rest that you obtaining a bachelor's degree in orbital mechanics is something you will never achieve in your lifetime.

Care to elaborate where you obtained your very definition of an oval is "sudden turns"? Or just do what you usually do, and cherry pick to ignore this question. Why embaras yourself even more, little wet fishy?

Huh. Earlier you were convinced that you could move thousands of mph (specifically 66,620 mph) on an elliptical orbit without feeling the effects.

Really.  Quote and cite the post. 


It’s been extensively posted traveling in an airplane, if there is no acceleration or no turbulence, there is no sense of motion.

Again people are horrible at sensing changes in direction.  Why people can’t walk a straight line in the dark.  Why the will circle, drift, and back track.

Note.  Added.  But a more sensitive device like a ring laser gyroscope will drift because the earth rotates about its axis. 


So.  The earth makes one revolution on its axis every 24 hours. That’s how many degrees every hour? 

Quote from: Cameron 1964 on March 16, 2024, 07:01:54 PM

You flat earth folks are a sad bunch.
You live in a round flat terrarium with a plastic lid? No outer space to wonder at. No universe filled with amazing stars and planets and boundless numbers of galaxies.
A thing saw awesome it's difficult to even try to comprehend.

I prefer reality to living on a pie plate with a plastic dome.
Feeling sorry for you who are that disillusioned.
I suggest a drive into the desert and stare at the night sky until the sun comes up over the horizon.

Hi, Son of Master...meet you on the level (wink,wink).

Really too bad you have significant trouble conceptualizing the process of geometric translation of celestial sphere coordinates to the flat earth plane below.

The ancients had no such trouble, thereby giving us the wonders of such places as Giza and Tenochtitlan.

Hopefully, you'll be able to see the light one day.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? What do pyramids have to do with anything here? Other than seem to line up on great circles? But that can't be, that would suggest they're on the surface of a sphere.

The Maya built some of the biggest pyramid complexes discovered. They knew they were on a sphere, they even figured out the wobble in the plants rotation. Impossible to dispute as they built their well known calendar on that cycle (bactun). And their cycle is as or maybe more. accurate than modern measurements.
Now that's impressive.
Does your FE model wobble such that the North Star moves in a little circle every 5600 and something years?