1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity

« on: October 23, 2011, 05:15:48 PM »

Haha not quite. I'm a firm believer in a round Earth.

If you analyze the equations of special relativity like in the following...
http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
you will see that under a constant acceleration, an object's velocity will asymptotically approach the speed of light as time goes to infinity.

This has always been an issue I've had with the flat Earth model. Under special relativity, Earth can indeed accelerate forever from our point of view. The problem is that under a flat Earth model, there's little evidence that special relativity is true. Most experiments to test it rely on the assumption of a round Earth model.

Special relativity essentially becomes yet another unexplained phenomena to deal with one of the problems of the flat Earth model.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Someone debate me

« on: October 21, 2011, 05:02:39 AM »

No. How does that follow?

Well, a force that resists the motion of the flat Earth upwards would no doubt resist the motion of any objects on it's surface that this aether also comes into contact with. Why wouldn't it?

Now air resistance has been disproved?

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting this aether resistance is just air resistance?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Someone debate me

« on: October 20, 2011, 04:08:50 PM »

Aether resistance.

Wouldn't we then have an unexplained resistive force every time we move around? Why don't we detect this?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Someone debate me

« on: October 20, 2011, 09:26:16 AM »

Flat on the top and round on the bottom. We are on an upside-down hamburger bun.

The question that springs to mind then is why an upside-down hamburger bun? What are the forces that contort it into this shape? If it's forces much the same as those that act on a raindrop, then there should be a force pushing down on the surface we live on to make it flat.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?

« on: October 20, 2011, 05:40:49 AM »

Wallace took up the experiment because he was desperate for the money, and the court mentioned made Wallace give Hampton his money back. We have the proceedings somewhere on the site if you want to see them.

Assuming that you are talking about the document linked to previously in this topic, there are two main issues I have with it:

• It's between Hampden and Walsh, not Hampden and Wallace.
• There's no mention of cheating.

Unless there's another document somewhere which everyone is talking about instead.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?

« on: October 19, 2011, 05:16:05 PM »

Not really, because an unbiased jury of their peers said that Wallace cheated.

Someone else said Wallace cheated? There's plenty of stuff about the wager being void, but nothing about Wallace actually cheating.

It also seems odd that Wallace would be the one to cheat, given that it was, as far as I know, Hampden who designed the experiment, chose the location and chose the time.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?

« on: October 19, 2011, 01:45:47 PM »

I've never understood the obsession of what the outcome of the bet was. It's much easier to just look at the outcome of the experiment itself, rather than what either side said or did about it.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The problems with bendy light

« on: October 19, 2011, 05:52:29 AM »

LASER LIGHT IS BENDED ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR THE HORIZON.

Laser light is bent to a significant degree? I always through that wouldn't work, as the light in a laser is bounced between a mirror and a half-silvered mirror hundreds of times. If there was any significant force acting on the light, the beam would be smeared in one direction when it comes out of the laser.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Looks flat to me" - a valid argument?

« on: October 18, 2011, 05:49:34 AM »

I've never understood why the flat Earthers seem to consider the eye an infallible tool. The simple fact that optical illusions and camouflage exists shows that the eye and brain can perceive one thing when the truth is something else.

It is you that needs to use your eyes. Look out to sea, or across a desert. Your eyes do not tell you, you are on a ball. Only globularists tell you, that you are on a ball.

My eyes don't tell me Greenland exists. Should I then assume it doesn't?

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

« on: October 16, 2011, 01:51:46 PM »

Webcams from rim-continent bases run by imagination?

No...You can call it the 'Rim continent ' if you want, but the bases are maintained by the Australian Government, as far as I can tell. The department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Antarctic Division To be precise.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

« on: October 16, 2011, 07:25:18 AM »

Of course, this also applies to FET

Light behaves in a manner expected on a sphere in a flat Earth model? Why is this?

The results aren't put into doubt. The method of deriving them is.

What's wrong with the method of deriving them? It seems far simpler than the flat Earth method, with it's bendy light, perspective making things disappear when reaching a certain distance, and other forces that no doubt have a significant effect on the distribution of light.

Just to add some data into this thread, here's a collection of webcams from various Antarctica bases run by Australia. I think these ones are quite good as they include a time lapse of the past few days, so you can get a rough idea of how long the days and nights are. As of the time of witing(mid October), the days where very slightly longer than the nights. This is much what you would expect with a round Earth model just after the September equinox, but as far as I can tell you would only expect 6 hours or so of light under a flat Earth model, unless there's another phenomena that's being kept from us.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

« on: October 12, 2011, 03:38:56 PM »

Ah, yes, another semantics challenge. A challenge that I will accept, nonetheless.
If there's one camera pointing at the Sun rising and one camera pointing at the Sun setting, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises and sets.
If there are two cameras pointing at either where the Sun rises or where the Sun sets, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises or sets.
If there existed two cameras pointing at both where the Sun rises and sets, an extra adjective would be necessary to avoid ambiguity with a logically possible situation. For example: There are cameras pointing to both where the Sun rises and sets.
It is very important to understand the difference between the two before trying to be a pedant about it. It also doesn't get you too far in the argument.

I would have thought that from the way I was talking about it it was clear enough that I was talking about individual webcams that point to both the place the Sun rises and the place the Sun sets, rather then webcams pointing to where the Sun rises with separate webcams pointing to where the Sun sets. Apologies if this has caused confusion.

Oh, what happened to your recent dedication and devotion to your claim? Not so long ago you were willing to take on the task of substantiating your own claims...

I'm only able to do so much with my free time. As I've mentioned before, I think that observing the Sun itself rise and set is excessive.

...and now I'm supposed to do your job for you? Might that be because you've tried and found out that your claim is entirely baseless? Surely if I did try to search (nb. I'm not going to try to back your claims up for you) and didn't find any cameras, you could just say I didn't look hard enough. An excellent tactic... for an amateur.

Earthcam alone has links to well over a thousand cameras scattered around the world. There's no shortage of webcams, and they aren't hard to find. I didn't think the finding of webcams was an issue.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Derek Deville's home-made rocket.

« on: October 11, 2011, 04:31:01 PM »

Maybe one of the more intelligent round earthers will come around and tell you about the topics of angular resolution and diffraction.

There's enough diffraction in such thin air to result in everything past a few hundred miles disappearing? I've never seen any attempt to show that it is what's expected in the FE model. Likewise with angular resolution.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

« on: October 11, 2011, 07:05:09 AM »

Oh, so your claim was moot. Well, at least you know when to admit it.

I never claimed there were webcams pointing to where the Sun rises and sets. I said there are webcams pointing to where the Sun rises or sets.

Although, I suppose you could try searching for controllable webcams. I don't know if you'll find that many around, through. I would just stick to monitoring light levels. It's sufficiently accurate for the problem at hand.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Derek Deville's home-made rocket.

« on: October 11, 2011, 06:54:01 AM »

The rocket was 9000 miles away from the Antarctica -- How far exactly do you expect to see?   

Well, as the pressure is about 800 - 900 times less than it is at Denver, and you can see 20 miles from there, I would guess you could see about 800 - 900 times as far. So, about 16,000 - 18,000 miles?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

« on: October 10, 2011, 03:36:39 PM »

Please prove that there are webcams all over the world looking at the sun set and rise from the horizon.

That's quite the request. Well, there won't be any that look at the Sun both setting and rising, as in most places these events happen in two significantly different directions.

Personally I think that observing the Sun itself rise and set is a little excessive. Just watching light levels should be an accurate enough method of estimating the shape of the Sun's spotlight. I suppose I can sit down and work out which cameras are pointing in the direction the sun rises or sets at this time of year, if that's that you really want.

There are thousands of the things through, so it will take quite a while. I think just watching light levels is a better option.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

« on: October 10, 2011, 12:08:10 PM »

There are not webcams all over the world looking at the sun set and rise from the horizon. You can't tell when the sun sets just by looking at a scene casually dim into darkness. The sky is still relatively lit from the sun after it sets, from the sun's light bouncing off of the atmosphere.

Why do you need such precision? The tolerance provided just by the light levels seen in the webcams is more than sufficient to tell which model is more reliable for predicting the times of sunrise and sunset.

And why do you say there aren't webcams pointing towards where the Sun rises or sets? There are a a lot of webcams around.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

« on: October 10, 2011, 09:31:29 AM »

I'm surprised that the times of sunrise and sunset are up for question. If you really doubt that the widely accepted figures are correct, then there are plenty of webcams all over the world you can use to check the accuracy of the times yourself.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Derek Deville's home-made rocket.

« on: October 10, 2011, 09:21:49 AM »

Denver is 15 to 20 miles distant in this photo from lookout mountain. Think of how small the mountains of the rim country are so many miles away. Why would one expect to see them at all?

With the atmosphere at a thousandth of the pressure and very little dust and smog at the height the rocket got up to you would expect that you would be able to see a little further than the few hundred miles that this video coupled with the flat Earth model suggests.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

« on: October 07, 2011, 05:31:10 AM »

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here. With no wind present, those droplets defy attractive gravitation...given the difference in weight (800 times heavier than air). The explanation accepted by science is silly, and defies the visible facts.

What do you find silly about it? If you think there's an error in it, it would be helpful to point it out rather than just saying 'It's silly'.

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.

What makes you think it will descend faster than it's being destroyed and replenished? As far as I can tell, your evidence consists of the fact you think it shouldn't work, and little else.

The Soviet Academy Science states quite clearly: the explosion was seen from Irkutsk and from the shores of Lake Baikal, here is their map:

Firstly, I suspect that the map includes the area where the object was visible, not just where the explosion could be seen from. As it likely started higher in the atmosphere than the height at which it exploded and the fact that it was apparently moving, it's not surprising that it was seen over an area slightly larger than the 400 km you keep mentioning.

Secondly, there's nothing to suggest that the explosion was seen from Irkutsk itself. You are making things up.

No other explosion occurred at 7:15 over Asia; give up the nonsense...do the research and prove to us here otherwise...

The research is already there. You have one set of reports over the Tunguska area, and you have another report of an object in a different direction to Tunguska. This suggests to me that there are two different objects.

We have the glow of the trajectory, on one side of a globe, and the immediate, instant observation on the other side the same globe, from London.

Why do you think it is a trajectory that's glowing? I through such a thing would be a line, not something spread all over the place.

It's not really an immediate, instant observation either. It was apparently going on all through the night, not just at the time the Tunguska event occurred.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

« on: October 06, 2011, 05:31:46 AM »

Then, how could an explosion which did take place at some 7km in altitude, on a cloudless day, be seen from Irkutsk, the Gobi desert, and from London itself?

Simple. It wasn't seen from Irkutsk because the quote you keep pointing out is from a newspaper report talking about a village north of Irkutsk. It wasn't seen from the Gobi desert because the reports from there don't place the object in the direction of Tunguska. It wasn't seen from London because nobody in London reported an explosion. They all saw a long lasting glow.

No other explosion took place over the sky of Asia at that time, June 30, 7:20, visible from the entire area, please give up the nonsense.

How do you know?

So do planes. There's more at play in the Earth's atmosphere than just gravity. The caliber of this statement puts you right along pitroidtech, with his immortal line: clouds are made up of vapour...no wonder you can be fooled so easily by Nasa...

I'm not sure I follow. What does NASA have to do with aerosols and mixtures?

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

« on: October 05, 2011, 04:45:01 AM »

n, you have not explained (and actually dodged the question) of the following fact: droplets of water contained in a cloud defy attractive gravity

So do planes. There's more at play in the Earth's atmosphere than just gravity.

More Gobi desert stuff

Why do you think the thing over the Gobi desert is the same as the one that happened at Tunguska? If I can see the lights from a plane in the sky, does that mean that all the people in the world who can see lights in the sky are looking that the same plane that I am?

Here is the report from Irkutsk itself, some 1000 km distance from Tunguska:

Just because something was published in a paper in Irkutsk doesn't mean it happened in Irkutsk.

Also, a lot of your other reports seem to suggest this thing was moving around all over the place. If it was moving around a lot, what's wrong with the idea that it passed within sight of Irkutsk before exploding over the Tunguska area?

Even the trajectory of the explosion itself was seen, all the way from London

How does anyone observe a trajectory? I can't recall any reports from London of a dotted line in the sky marking the path the object was taking...

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

« on: October 04, 2011, 05:53:56 AM »

The fact that clouds do not fall from the sky points clearly to another explanation of gravity.

Intelligent falling, perhaps?

You're not really providing anything to explain why things can't mix. Why should gases fight Brownian motion and separate themselves into layers? Where's the maths to suggest the tiny differences in mass are strong enough to overcome all the other forces fighting to mix the gases up and keep the clouds in the sky?

We would have to know first, FROM WHERE, what place, the observation was actually made. Then, and only then, we could comment on the intersection with Tunguska.

It doesn't matter where in the desert the observed it from. Even following the most westerly parts of the desert up on a 10 degree heading will just miss the point where the Tunguska event occurred.

To be fair, it seems silly to assume that this event is the same one that occurred over Tunguska. We would have to know first, FROM WHERE, what place, the observation was actually made. Then, and only then, we could comment on the intersection with Tunguska.

Therefore, the ball lightning changed path several times before approaching Tunguska, as I have indicated from the very beginning.

This seems to be even more evidence that the object seen in the desert was different to the one that exploded over Tunguska. Especially as your sources suggest that the object ended up 'slightly north of due west', nowhere near the direction of Tunguska.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The problems with bendy light

« on: October 04, 2011, 05:34:00 AM »

The main problem I have with bendy light, or atmospheric distortion, or whatever people feel like calling it currently, is that there's nothing to support it. The only reason flat Earth supporters think there's something bending the light rays is because it's the only thing they've come up with to explain what's seen if you assume that the Earth is flat. There's nothing that suggests that the air is frequently denser at the point you're looking at in the distance than it is where you are observing from.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

« on: October 03, 2011, 05:29:56 AM »

You need to work on refining your posts. Pages and pages of text don't work in your favor when trying to make a point.

Stuff about how clouds should instantly plummet and the atmosphere should separate into layers.

Not believing in mixtures and aerosols is all fine and good, but I'm not sure how it acts as evidence for a flat Earth, as things should settle just as much in a flat Earth model as in a round Earth model. The fact that clouds do not appear to fall from the sky should be a good indication that your hypothesis that clouds should fall from the sky is wrong.

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     

If you head up from the Gobi desert on a heading of around 10 degrees, you'll find you don't intersect the Tunguska area at all.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

« on: September 29, 2011, 04:59:11 AM »

 

And now even more proofs about the Tunguska explosion.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     


The Gobi desert is over 2000 km away from Tunguska...the explosion was seen again clearly...no refraction/reflection...the facts are very clear...       


Let us calculate the precise numbers.

Elevation of the Gobi desert: 900 - 1500 meters; to satisfy the RE requirements, we will ascend to 2000 meters.

Distance to Tunguska, over 2000 km...

Then the visual obstacle will measure: 275 KILOMETERS (two hundred and seventy-five kilometers).


The precise trajectory and explosion seen all the way from the Gobi desert, despite a 275 km visual obstacle (on a spherical earth)...it is over for the round earth theory...

If you head up from the Gobi desert on a heading of around 10 degrees, you'll find you don't intersect the Tunguska area at all.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Answering challenges with a faq.

« on: September 27, 2011, 05:11:09 PM »

That's Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, to you.

He got a degree?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: proof the earth is round

« on: September 27, 2011, 03:49:37 PM »

I've never understood people's obsession with the Bedford level. It's a flowing body of water. By it's very nature, it must be built on a slight downward slope for it to flow. Why are people so adamant that it's a accurate representation of the Earth's shape, given the water in it hasn't settled to a point where it's representative of the planet's shape?

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

« on: September 27, 2011, 06:06:05 AM »

The only way the explosion could have been seen from London (actually, even the initial trajectory of the ball lightning was also observed, from 0:00 to 0:15) is if the earth has a flat surface.

Who said an explosion was seen in London? You seem to be making stuff up. As far as I can see, all that was seen in Europe was a long lasting glow. Not an explosion.

Let us go to Spain, right on the beach.

...

And a video from exactly the same spot...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


There is no curvature between Spain and Morocco, over the strait of Gibraltar...

• How much curvature should be seen over the strait of Gibraltar? Considering there's no real landmarks on the opposite coast, or any information on how high the image and video was taken from, it seems a bit daft to derive any accurate measurements from it.
• Isn't the strait of Gibraltar a flowing body of water? Why are you assuming that it's settled into a level state?

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The problem with UA

« on: September 26, 2011, 05:04:58 AM »

The earth may accelerate indefinitely without reaching the speed of light. I'm sure that you will find this, if you look deeper into Special Relativity.

This is an issue I have with the flat Earth model. Relativity is always used to justify the endless acceleration, however most evidence for Relativity becomes useless or false when taken under the assumption of a flat Earth.