1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: in the flat earth concept there is vacuum? and other questions

« on: May 23, 2016, 04:52:54 AM »

In case anybody is still having trouble understanding how suction works, I will repeat. Pressure is force divided by area. If you increase the area while keeping the pressure constant, you increase the force. This is why the funnel is needed to lift the bowling ball, to increase the area and therefore increase the force and overcome the force of gravity.

Even with a pure vacuum, you can't lift everything because the pressure difference is not infinite. What you can lift will be dependent on the pressure of the surround fluid and the area you can cover. That's why there is a limit to high you can pull water with a single straw.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: in the flat earth concept there is vacuum? and other questions

« on: May 22, 2016, 07:24:35 PM »

The scientific illiteracy in this thread is going to make me vomit blood out of my eyeballs. Bullwinkle is right. You don't need vacuum for there to be suction. There just needs to be a difference in pressure. Pressure is force/area and it's the force that causes the fluid to move.

Think of how you suck water through a straw. When you suck, you're increasing the surface area of the inside of your mouth without letting more air in, which decreases the pressure. Now the water pressure is greater than the air pressure, and the water pressure pushes the water up the straw into your mouth. It's why you need to close your throat to suck water through a straw (without using your lungs).

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does This Prove The Earth Is NOT Round Like A Globe?

« on: April 17, 2016, 05:34:53 PM »

I've never seen or heard this before. I've only heard that the sun follows an arch throughout the day from east to west.

That's because flat earthers are so simple minded that their brains will fry if you try to introduce concepts like axial tilt. They are already confused by simple facts and observations, so explaining slightly more complicated facts will only confuse them further.

I'm sure most scientifically literate people here would love to discuss things like axial tilt, axial precession, and atmospheric refraction, but flat earthers can't even accept that planets are visible in the night sky and can be observed rather accurately using commercial-grade telescopes.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.

« on: April 16, 2016, 02:10:48 PM »

If the Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, helicopters and hot-air balloons should be able to simply hover over the surface of the Earth and wait for their destinations to come to them!

If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west.

And what mechanism do you propose would bring the helicopter, hot-air balloon, and cannonball to a stop (they are also moving over 1000mph when they leave the surface), while the surface and air continue by?

The mechanism is called "I don't understand inertia".

The mechanism is called "I'm not satanist, atheist or ziyonist"

Understanding physics makes you a satanist. Brilliant.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would make you change your mind?

« on: April 16, 2016, 01:29:33 PM »

Playing for team reality, I'll give you my answer for what would convince me that the world is flat. I want a single coherent model that explains constant downward acceleration, why the surface of Earth appears to curve downwards but actually doesn't, and how the celestial bodies move in the sky (I'm looking for a mathematical description, something we can use to predict the future positions of celestial bodies.). This model also needs to explain and predict these things more accurately than the scientific model.

I want you to explain it to me like the government brainwashed NASA shill I am. Walk me through every step of the way. I want experimental and mathematical rigor. I need to be able to do the calculations, then go take my observations and have my observations match my calculations.

And before JRowe shows up, DET is not a coherent model.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.

« on: April 16, 2016, 01:19:39 PM »

If the Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, helicopters and hot-air balloons should be able to simply hover over the surface of the Earth and wait for their destinations to come to them!

If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west.

And what mechanism do you propose would bring the helicopter, hot-air balloon, and cannonball to a stop (they are also moving over 1000mph when they leave the surface), while the surface and air continue by?

The mechanism is called "I don't understand inertia".

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the FE model explain the motion of the planets?

« on: April 15, 2016, 08:57:02 PM »

Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.[/quoate]

Sorry, but this is simply false. If it were true, we wouldn't be able to see the planets at midnight. In this model, a planet would never be on the opposite side of Earth as the Sun. In real life, this happens all the time.

and wheres your souce?, pelase show me your years of studies, photos and footage please.

I just took your model and showed you how it's incompatible with observation. Just look at any picture of one of the planets at night, or go take one yourself. Venus, Mars, and Jupiter aren't hard to find.

I suggest using the SkyView app which shows you where the planets, stars, and some satellites are in the sky.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the FE model explain the motion of the planets?

« on: April 15, 2016, 08:35:47 PM »

Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.[/quoate]

Sorry, but this is simply false. If it were true, we wouldn't be able to see the planets at midnight. In this model, a planet would never be on the opposite side of Earth as the Sun. In real life, this happens all the time.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.

« on: April 15, 2016, 05:46:18 PM »

I'm going to make this real simple for you, Uninvited Guest. Earth and Mars both orbit the sun in the same direction. If we view the north pole as the "top" they are orbiting counter-clockwise. Earth orbits faster than Mars (This fact can be shown using observation or derived mathematically). Most of the time we see Mars going across the sky towards the East. However, when our motion is close to parallel with Mars' motion, it appears to be moving West. This is because we are moving faster than Mars, so relative to us, Mars looks like it's going backwards in its orbit. It's like when you're driving on the freeway, any cars that are moving slower than you appear to be moving backwards, even though you are both moving in the same direction.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.

« on: April 14, 2016, 05:03:13 PM »

This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a globe earth

« on: April 14, 2016, 01:00:26 AM »

I'll copy and paste my response to the thread from a few months ago since I never got a proper response.

1. Objects going past the horizon disappear from the bottom up. They don't shrink because they are getting farther away, they are going under the horizon line.
2. The moon and sun set under the horizon. If the Earth were a flat disc, this would mean that they are going underneath the disc.
3. You can change when sunrise and sunset occur simply by changing your altitude. Go to Dubai, watch the sunset, take an elevator to the top of Burj Khalifa, and watch the sunset again.
4. The sun is always up somewhere, meaning that the sun can't be under the disc. This presents a conflict with point 2.
5. The stars visible from the northern hemisphere are different from the stars visible from the southern hemisphere.
6. In the northern hemisphere, the stars appear to revolve around Polaris. In the southern hemisphere, stars appear to revolve around Sigma Octantis. On a flat Earth the stars would all appear to revolve around the same point.
7. Commercial tours to the South Pole are available starting from Punta Arenas, Chile, and Cape Town, South Africa. Start from Chile, have your friend start from South Africa, and you will both arrive at the same place. Bring a compass with you to ensure that your boat goes due south and you aren't being brought to a fake South Pole.
8. The International Space Station is visible from the ground. http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/ will tell you exactly when and where to look. You can even communicate with the station with a radio if you have the technological know-how.
9. Different points on the Earth have measurably different gravitational acceleration. This is to be expected since the Earth is not a perfect sphere and is spinning.
10. There are unaltered, non-composite photographs of the Earth from space which show its curvature.

You don't have to refute them all, just pick one or two and we can discuss them. Or refute all ten, whatever floats your boat.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth

« on: December 21, 2015, 08:15:20 PM »

Is any FE is going to provide ten proofs or not?

No they won't. They won't even try. Direct debate and discussion is how they lose.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Wanted: Honest REer

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:54:44 PM »

I'm currently reading through your big DET overview post on the DET forum and I'm already seeing things that could use clarification. I'd be happy to take a look at your more refined model if you'll let me.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:50:00 PM »

Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.

Be serious.

I am serious. There is some unidentified object flying high in the sky with a predictable pattern and you don't care about how that works in your theory? If some UFO entered Earth's atmosphere and started flying by some unknown mechanism, you can bet your ass that scientists from all over the world would be on that immediately.

What exactly makes you think it's not human-built?

Even if it is human-built, studying the ISS would still be a huge step in developing your Dual-Earth theory. Don't you want to see how the ISS and other satellites fit in with all the other objects in the sky?

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:42:06 PM »

Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.

Be serious.

I am serious. There is some unidentified object flying high in the sky with a predictable pattern and you don't care about how that works in your theory? If some UFO entered Earth's atmosphere and started flying by some unknown mechanism, you can bet your ass that scientists from all over the world would be on that immediately.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:23:26 PM »

Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:16:41 PM »

It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.

Tiny little nitpicking detail. The ISS doesn't actually orbit in total vacuum. It is still technically inside the atmosphere and experiences slight atmospheric drag, so it needs to be boosted occasionally to maintain altitude.

I thought about that as I was typing it. Thank you for the criticism for accuracy.  It will prevent them from twisting the words and derailing the thread.

We need to keep each other on our toes. After all, we are the ones will actual science backing up what we say.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:10:01 PM »

It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.

Tiny little nitpicking detail. The ISS doesn't actually orbit in total vacuum. It is still technically inside the atmosphere and experiences slight atmospheric drag, so it needs to be boosted occasionally to maintain altitude.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Everything is flat

« on: December 21, 2015, 03:02:33 PM »

Search the double slit experiment and you will realize particles do not take form until they are observed.

False. The reason particles appear to "take form" once observed it because their wave-form collapses as soon as they are interacted with. It's not the observation, it's the interaction. Observation is impossible without interaction.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 02:53:51 PM »

I realize that 10 might not be a good reason because "muh conspiracy" but I've never actually seen 8 addressed. It usually just gets ignored.

10 isn't necessarily based on a conspiracy: just artistic license. The only such photos actively want to show curvature, but typically it's nearly impossible to see any at accessible altitudes (for publicly available images) due to what is a small amount even under RET, and blurring down to clouds.
All 8 demonstrates is that there's something in the sky.

Right, but what would that something be? What would be keeping it in the sky? Why has no FE astronomer done any research at all into what this object might be?

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 02:45:34 PM »

I realize that 10 might not be a good reason because "muh conspiracy" but I've never actually seen 8 addressed. It usually just gets ignored.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 01:56:22 PM »

jroa has appeared and the thread is already starting to derail. Can a FEer please just address my individual points? Don't just say the whole list is garbage. Go through each point and explain why it is incorrect or irrelevant.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Wanted: Honest REer

« on: December 21, 2015, 01:53:51 PM »

I mean, if your proof-reader found something internally inconsistent with the model, would you want them to point it out or just leave it?

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Wanted: Honest REer

« on: December 21, 2015, 01:33:41 PM »

Are you looking for fact-checking or just internal consistency?

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 01:31:04 PM »

See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).

You want for us to copy and paste?  Are you dumb?

I wrote this list myself. I'm not copying and pasting from another REer, I'm copying and pasting from myself in another thread.

26

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution

« on: December 21, 2015, 01:28:17 PM »

I'm going to go through that last article you linked.

1. I was unable to find a scientific source for this claim, only other creationist websites.
2. See 1.
3. Same problem I outlined before about transitional fossils.
4. Irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Also, I'm pretty sure embryonic recapitulation has been falsified.
5. See 1.
6. Betrays a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. The law only applies to systems which are in thermodynamic equilibrium. The Earth receives energy from the Sun constantly, and is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
7. Betrays a lack of understanding of what vestigial organs are and what the theory of evolution is. Vestigial organs appear in animals besides humans. For example, dolphins and whales still have foot bones because they evolved from terrestrial mammals. The fact that many organs in the human body once thought to be vestigial actually have a purpose is not a strike against evolution, but against our understanding of the human body. Evolution does not say that useless body parts must eventually disappear, so that claim is simply false.
8. Non-sequiter. Just because creationism offers an (albeit erroneous) explanation does not make the scientific explanation any less valid.
9. See 3. Also betrays a HUGE misunderstanding of evolution.
10. See 1.
11. See 1.
12. See 1.
13. See 1.
14. The age of the sediment of the Nile is irrelevant to the age of the planet.
15. The Earth's rotation slowing down has to due with tidal friction from the moon, and the origin of the moon is still very much a mystery. If anything, this places a limit on the age of the moon, not the Earth.
16. All that tells us is that those thirty-seven written accounts are false.
17. God doesn't actually exist, so the Bible is not a reliable source of information.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: sun and eyes

« on: December 21, 2015, 12:50:46 PM »

Take a stringline & two fixed points pull it tight & see if you can make the string line  convex.

Look, I am sorry, but neither I, nor anyone else has any idea what this "string line" is supposed to do!
Please tell us just why it should "convex" or not on any sort of earth?
How can we answer if we have no idea what you are talking about?

If you cant get a simple  stringline to convex  between two fixed points, it in fact concaves due to the weight of its mass  falling  to gravity .Then  how can you ever claim other matter is convexing.
Thats check mate game over , unless you can get the stringline to convex.

the string is being held up by the posts at the ends and is being pulled down by gravity in the middle. Of course it will bend down in the middle.

Now if you had posts holding the string along its entire length then it was show a 'Convex' shape.

The stringline will still sag between the posts . Like all matter will fall to its own weight till it finds support or a force that will overpower that fall or transfer that fall to a different point. Your claim If you had more posts, how does that work for liquefied water ?

Ok charles, imagine you have a sandbox full of sand. You can't interact with the sand directly, you can only lightly shake the sandbox. The sand starts out unevenly distributed, with hills and valleys. What happens when you lightly shake the sandbox and agitate the sand? That's right, the sand will start to level out. The sand forms a horizontal surface because gravity is pulling it vertically down. In other words, the surface is perpendicular to the direction of the force acting on it.

The planet is like a giant sandbox, but gravity always faces towards the center of mass. This means that the direction of gravity will change as you move across the surface (though it will always appear to be "down"). The surface levels out to be perpendicular to the direction of gravity at all points, forming a spheroid.

It's like how the tangent of a circle at any given point is always perpendicular to the line between that point and the center of the circle. This isn't difficult to understand.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 12:41:03 PM »

See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).

A proof for a globe shouldn't be an observation expected under an FE model. I would happily use most of those as an observation predicted by my model: why does it only work as evidence of RET?
Ah, right, presupposition, bias and dishonesty.

My list is just observations we would expect with a RE but not with a FE. If you want to explain how these observations would be expected with a FE, I'm all ears.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth

« on: December 21, 2015, 11:47:56 AM »

I'll give it a go just for fun.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
QED.

I'll save space and leave your text out, but you forgot No 11 out of 10!
11.  A string line won't convex, so the earth must be flat.  Ask Charles Bloomington why that is so!  I have not worked the logic yet!

Yes, but a pizza dough will not concave, therefore the Earth is round!

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 11:46:32 AM »

I'll copy and paste mine from the previous thread.

1. Objects going past the horizon disappear from the bottom up. They don't shrink because they are getting farther away, they are going under the horizon line.
2. The moon and sun set under the horizon. If the Earth were a flat disc, this would mean that they are going underneath the disc.
3. You can change when sunrise and sunset occur simply by changing your altitude. Go to Dubai, watch the sunset, take an elevator to the top of Burj Khalifa, and watch the sunset again.
4. The sun is always up somewhere, meaning that the sun can't be under the disc. This presents a conflict with point 2.
5. The stars visible from the northern hemisphere are different from the stars visible from the southern hemisphere.
6. In the northern hemisphere, the stars appear to revolve around Polaris. In the southern hemisphere, stars appear to revolve around Sigma Octantis. On a flat Earth the stars would all appear to revolve around the same point.
7. Commercial tours to the South Pole are available starting from Punta Arenas, Chile, and Cape Town, South Africa. Start from Chile, have your friend start from South Africa, and you will both arrive at the same place. Bring a compass with you to ensure that your boat goes due south and you aren't being brought to a fake South Pole.
8. The International Space Station is visible from the ground. http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/ will tell you exactly when and where to look. You can even communicate with the station with a radio if you have the technological know-how.
9. Different points on the Earth have measurably different gravitational acceleration. This is to be expected since the Earth is not a perfect sphere and is spinning.
10. There are unaltered, non-composite photographs of the Earth from space which show its curvature.