The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: fenterb on February 05, 2009, 05:33:07 AM
-
Hi
I've been flying around the world for about 20 years now for various business trips. I've flown from Europe to Australia along one side of the planet (stopping along the way) and I've flown back the other side of the planet (stopping along the way)
For example it takes roughtly 24 hours to fly from England to Australia, but I've flown from Australia to South America in half this time.
By your flat earth theory and maps, this journey should in fact take twice as long, not half as long. Please explain how this is possible.
In fact you dont need to take my word for it, you can easily map out the earth as a globe using airline flight times. If there is some conspiracy about the earth being a sphere, ALL the world airline compaines are in on it, and there are a lot of airoplanes flying round in circles to perpetuate the lie.
Any thoughts?
-
Wow, I literally JUST made a topic about this.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26662.0
Nice to have someone who flies regularly too here to back me up. (and vice versa)
-
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
-
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
That doesn't matter, it's impossible to maintain a flat Earth map, when the max flight time is 24 hours. S America to Australia is shorter than S America to UK. But on your map, rougly, it definitely isn't.
If you made an accurate map, it'd be impossible to balance all the flight times so they were all correct, one would always be out, meaning your entire map is flawed. Realistic flight times that exist empirically in our world, without having to go into space, or to take "fakable" photographs, you can just hop on a plane and see for yourself, as millions of people do each day.
The equilibrium does not work on a flat earth. Get over it, the Earth is round, hypothetical map or not.
-
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
Hypothetical or not, the distance involved and the times involved completely disprove any possible Flat Earth Map.
-
That doesn't matter, it's impossible to maintain a flat Earth map, when the max flight time is 24 hours. S America to Australia is shorter than S America to UK. But on your map, rougly, it definitely isn't.
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
-
Hypothetical or not, the distance involved and the times involved completely disprove any possible Flat Earth Map.
Do you have the necessary flight logs and data to show that?
-
Hypothetical or not, the distance involved and the times involved completely disprove any possible Flat Earth Map.
Do you have the necessary flight logs and data to show that?
There are a few on here that might, but I don't as I am not a pilot.
If fenterb is good enough he/she might just post some if you ask nicely and agree that if they do then you will agree that FET is wrong. But if you are just going to reject it because it disagrees with you, then it would be a waste of time to post anything.
Would you agree to that Tom, if someone actually was to post flight logs would you then reject FET and accept RET? Or would you twist more and more until you included those logs as part of a conspiracy?
If all you are going to do is the latter, then it is pointless (and not, this is not a statement that such data does not exist, it is just a query to see if it is worth the trouble to do so as the time it would take would be wasted on a Troll that is just trying to make other work for their perverted entertainment).
-
Well when you manage to gather the flight logs necessary to disprove every possible FE map configuration please send me a PM so we can continue our discussion.
-
Well when you manage to gather the flight logs necessary to disprove every possible FE map configuration please send me a PM so we can continue our discussion.
Tom you didn't answer my question:
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
If it is worth my time and effort, then I will look into it.
-
Well when you manage to gather the flight logs necessary to disprove every possible FE map configuration please send me a PM so we can continue our discussion.
This doesnt need 'proving' by flight logs. Any airline company on the internet will give you its flight times between any airports. My point is that it is completely unfeasable for flat earth given the way that travel between the world continents works.
I've experienced spherical earth first hand and so have millions of people on this planet. You dont need to go into space to experience round earth, you just have to have to be well travelled.
I'm not lying, im not part of the conspiracy, I'm not a NASA executive trying to cover up the truth, I'm not an atheist trying to disprove God (I'm a born again Christian if you must know). I'm just a person who can see past the end of his nose who is telling you the way the world is.
-
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.
-
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.
We have shown you the data before from quantas airlines and you rejected it so why should we do it again
-
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.
Here's a quick example of some of this data plucked off the internet.
England to Australia: 24 hours
Australia to South America: 17 hours
http://www.blurtit.com/q496939.html
http://www.convertunits.com/time/from/brisbane,+australia/to/south+america
Now before you question the integrity of this data I should point out that you could go to any airline or any website and the figures will be similar. These are just examples but they are consistent with the truth.
This example alone concludes that Australia cannot be the other side of a disk to South America.
If you were to place South America on another place on a disc compared to Australia I could prove it wrong with another flight time. We could keep doing this until you had to concede the flat earth theory is false.
The truth is the flight times from country to country ONLY correlate when you have a ROUND earth.
-
We only need about 4 flight times to disprove you. If they arrange their map to move S. America closer to Australia, we can just log flight times from S. America to somewhere in Europe.
Tom Bishop: It's impossible for there to be an accurate map of a flat world, so why bother denying the fact that we don't have evidence from every point on the Earth to every other point, we don't need that much data. You already know you're wrong, you're the biggest troll on the internet.
The Earth is round guys, it's conclusive. If Tom doesn't agree here, there's no way you can convince him ever, and it's obvious that either: He's doing this for a laugh, or he's mental.
-
Well when you manage to gather the flight logs necessary to disprove every possible FE map configuration please send me a PM so we can continue our discussion.
Interestingly enough, I've yet to see a single FE map configuration, beyond the hypothetical 'RE map distorted into a disc'. How do you show that 0 maps are incorrect?
-
Well when you manage to gather the flight logs necessary to disprove every possible FE map configuration please send me a PM so we can continue our discussion.
Interestingly enough, I've yet to see a single FE map configuration, beyond the hypothetical 'RE map distorted into a disc'. How do you show that 0 maps are incorrect?
Exactly. It's all academic until somebody produces a valid FE map.
-
Well when you manage to gather the flight logs necessary to disprove every possible FE map configuration please send me a PM so we can continue our discussion.
Interestingly enough, I've yet to see a single FE map configuration, beyond the hypothetical 'RE map distorted into a disc'. How do you show that 0 maps are incorrect?
Exactly. It's all academic until somebody produces a valid FE map.
Sadly, nobody seems to be in any sort of hurry to produce said valid FE map. It's almost as if FE'ers don't believe that an accurate map of the earth could be of any value.
-
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.
Please don't bother. The FEers never collect data and present evidence; It's against their Zetecist principals, so why should you? They only make claims and lazily attribute them to "human experience".
-
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.
When you actually have some data that proves the earth flat, please let us know.
-
Well when you manage to gather the flight logs necessary to disprove every possible FE map configuration please send me a PM so we can continue our discussion.
Interestingly enough, I've yet to see a single FE map configuration, beyond the hypothetical 'RE map distorted into a disc'. How do you show that 0 maps are incorrect?
Exactly. It's all academic until somebody produces a valid FE map.
Sadly, nobody seems to be in any sort of hurry to produce said valid FE map. It's almost as if FE'ers don't believe that an accurate map of the earth could be of any value.
You know why we don't have a valid map, Markjo. For those who aren't being intentionally obtuse, we simply don't have the resources to survey the entire earth so we can legitimately produce said valid map. Sorry.
-
Well when you manage to gather the flight logs necessary to disprove every possible FE map configuration please send me a PM so we can continue our discussion.
Interestingly enough, I've yet to see a single FE map configuration, beyond the hypothetical 'RE map distorted into a disc'. How do you show that 0 maps are incorrect?
Exactly. It's all academic until somebody produces a valid FE map.
Sadly, nobody seems to be in any sort of hurry to produce said valid FE map. It's almost as if FE'ers don't believe that an accurate map of the earth could be of any value.
You know why we don't have a valid map, Markjo. For those who aren't being intentionally obtuse, we simply don't have the resources to survey the entire earth so we can legitimately produce said valid map. Sorry.
However someone can go the archives and look at the surveys that have already been done and make a map from that assume a FE
-
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.
Ok, here:
http://www.airrouting.com/content/TimeDistanceForm.aspx
Now Tom, if this were not accurate, then it could easily be disproved by anyone getting into a flight and timing the trip themselves. It is turns out that this predicts the time to be 5 hours, and it instead take 15 hours, then I think people would notice. Also you can avoid any effect of knock out gas by having the timing done by someone who is not on the plane, say a friend that watches you take off that calls another friend with the time that you took off, and then the second friend telling you the time when you arrive. This avoids any skulduggery by the airline companies to make the trip seem shorter than it is.
There are literally millions of people flying around the world every day. If the flight times posted by the Airline companies didn't match the actual times, then there would be an extremely obvious crack in the conspiracy. So we can therefore take the times posted by the Airline companies as being accurate, whether there is a conspiracy or not.
Using the flight times we can calculate the Geodesics for the Earth and therefore determine that the only shape the Earth can be is Spherical (well oblate spheroid, as the data that is given is not accurate enough to determine the exact distortions from a true sphere).
The Earth is not flat and must be spherical based on the flight times of international flights (which can easily be independently checked in a way that can avoid any sabotage by conspirators).
-
You know why we don't have a valid map, Markjo. For those who aren't being intentionally obtuse, we simply don't have the resources to survey the entire earth so we can legitimately produce said valid map. Sorry.
+ You can't have an accurate map of a Flat Earth because looking at the post above, it completely stops there being any possibility of a flat Earth.
Why don't you just accept that the Earth is set on a globe, which all empirical and testable evidence shows. There is no conspiracy, and time does not warp 10 hours when you're in a plane etc etc. The Earth is not flat.
See here for an example of some calculations.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26662.0
-
Anyone got a real counter example yet? Or is the Earth Round?
-
Ok, here:
http://www.airrouting.com/content/TimeDistanceForm.aspx
I don't see anything proving an RE in that link.
Now Tom, if this were not accurate, then it could easily be disproved by anyone getting into a flight and timing the trip themselves.
When you have some actual data which demonstrates that the earth is a globe and no other shape let us know so so we can continue this thread.
-
Ok, here:
http://www.airrouting.com/content/TimeDistanceForm.aspx
I don't see anything proving an RE in that link.
Now Tom, if this were not accurate, then it could easily be disproved by anyone getting into a flight and timing the trip themselves.
When you have some actual data which demonstrates that the earth is a globe and no other shape let us know so so we can continue this thread.
As i've already said Tom, and you have failed to listen or to even take into account any argument that you can't disprove:
We do not need accurate data, approximations that are accurate ENOUGH in the real world disprove the Earth's flatness. The times will only work on a spherical Earth. Therefore, we have already proved it, but you only select some posts to reply to, which is not only narrow minded, it's ridiculously annoying seeing as you cannot disprove our argument, and the Earth is not flat.
-
Waa. Waa waa waa.
The above is of approximately the same value in this debate as your last post, Roundsquares. If you really want to take on the Bishop, you need cold hard facts! If you rise to his bait you've lost before you even start posting.
-
Lurking is a virtue.
-
I am glad to see that even though I have been away for nearly 6 months, the flat earthers still are failing to produce any coherent arguments, or evidence to support the fact that the earth is flat.
In fact the best advocate for a round earth is Tom Bishop, since his theories are so far fetched that only a complete moron would believe him.
-
As i've already said Tom, and you have failed to listen or to even take into account any argument that you can't disprove:
We do not need accurate data, approximations that are accurate ENOUGH in the real world disprove the Earth's flatness. The times will only work on a spherical Earth. Therefore, we have already proved it, but you only select some posts to reply to, which is not only narrow minded, it's ridiculously annoying seeing as you cannot disprove our argument, and the Earth is not flat.
So no data then?
-
There he goes again - keep it up Tom ;D
-
As i've already said Tom, and you have failed to listen or to even take into account any argument that you can't disprove:
We do not need accurate data, approximations that are accurate ENOUGH in the real world disprove the Earth's flatness. The times will only work on a spherical Earth. Therefore, we have already proved it, but you only select some posts to reply to, which is not only narrow minded, it's ridiculously annoying seeing as you cannot disprove our argument, and the Earth is not flat.
So no data then?
We are waiting on yur data tom
-
Tom doesn't do data, only arguing the minutae in grammar of arguments - he doesn't have a single fact in his head. In fact I predict his next post will prove that!
-
I stand corrected - he is going to duck out of the argument all together - thus proving that he has no rebuttal to any of the facts presented in this thread.
Chalk one up for round earth fact.
-
Well when you guys have some data demonstrating that the earth takes the shape of a globe and no other please get a hold of me so we can continue this thread.
-
Well when you guys have some data demonstrating that the earth takes the shape of a globe and no other please get a hold of me so we can continue this thread.
Pretty much as predicted - he slithers and slides but not a single fact exists in his tiny mind!
-
And once again he disappears - what a worthy adversary he is! ;D
-
Still no data?
-
Like a broken record - he asks for data, whilst all can see he uses this argument as a safety blanket for his lack of knowledge.
Tom we're on to you!
Answer the request for data from you, and you will receive your data. Since no data exists to prove a flat earth - this may take some time.
-
Still no data?
Still no data
-
You know one of these days I'll pop onto this forum and I'll find real evidence of a flat earth, Tom Bishop will answer a question......
And my lottery numbers will come up. All equally unlikely I think you'll find.
Goodnight all!. Tom remember to hang on to the earth - you might fall off!
-
I'm curious about something. How come the Round Earthers have to prove without a doubt that the Earth is round and no other shape but the Flat Earthers don't have to prove without a doubt that the the Earth is flat and no other shape?
-
I'm curious about something. How come the Round Earthers have to prove without a doubt that the Earth is round and no other shape but the Flat Earthers don't have to prove without a doubt that the the Earth is flat and no other shape?
Because we're not the ones here claiming to have travel and cartographical data which proves our model.
-
Because we're not the ones here claiming to have travel and cartographical data which proves our model.
But if you have no proof of your model being right, you're not really proving that the Earth is flat. All you're managing to prove is that the Earth isn't round.
In order to prove your side, wouldn't you need to chalk up proof for the Earth being flat and no other possible shape, not even round?
If the Earth is "proven" not to be Round, but you have no proof of it being Flat either, which shape are we supposed to go along with? I would think that most people would want to stick by the one that at least has the MOST AMOUNT of proof, even if it is not perfect.
-
But if you have no proof of your model being right, you're not really proving that the Earth is flat. All you're managing to prove is that the Earth isn't round.
In order to prove your side, wouldn't you need to chalk up proof for the Earth being flat and no other possible shape, not even round?
If the Earth is "proven" not to be Round, but you have no proof of it being Flat either, which shape are we supposed to go along with? I would think that most people would want to stick by the one that at least has the MOST AMOUNT of proof, even if it is not perfect.
What are you babbling about now?
You guys keep claiming that you have all this cartographical data which proves that the earth is a globe. So lets see it.
-
oh my goodness me, i'm extremely drunk, but as i've said Tom, we have our estimated data, and it's accurate enough to disprove Flat Earth Theory. So YOU need data to continue this argument.
If the UK to Australia is 24 hours, yet Australia to S.America is less than 24 hours, how does FE work? This is on experience and empirical data of flight times which are as short as possible. Airlines are not in on the conspiracy according to the FAQ. And if they were, and according to FET the reason is MONEY, then they'd still fly the shortest possible route to reduce fuel expense. Which begs the question, if on your map you move S. America closer to Australia...how come a flight from S. America to Russia remains the same.
YOU CANNOT DISPROVE EMPIRICAL DATA. Tom Bishop and your "exact data" argument fails. As i've said at least 3 times: We don't need exact data to disprove Flat Earth theory...we have rough estimates that are empirically accurate, yet you have given us no rebuttal or data/more accurate map/revised map of your own.
You completely lose this argument, so admit the only Earth shape that fits the facts is a round one. Seriously, you are wrong. We could do the research, but if you aren't even going to bother replying with a proper response, there is no point. You are completely and utterly flawed.
Tom Bishop=fraud, and he knows it.
edited for spelling mistake
-
oh my goodness me, i'm extremely drunk, but as i've said Tom, we have our estimated data, and it's accurate enough to disprove Flat Earth Theory. So YOU need data to continue this argument.
Where's the data?
-
Here you go tom based upon thousands of years of observations and charting of the land and water masses
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S020l4nY9JgugAinmjzbkF/SIG=125q9dpr5/EXP=1234235128/**http%3A//www.pagina.se/disketter/20708/x3/globe.jpg)
-
What are you babbling about now?
I'll try to explain this again. Basically, Round Earthers are trying to prove that the Earth is a globe. Flat Earthers are trying to prove it's flat. That part is pretty obvious.
The thing is that though you've offered reasons for the Flat Earth being an alternative theory, there have been very few logical attacks on the Round Earth theory that have managed to succeed. Even if you manage to prove that a Flat Earth is possible, the point is that the chance of it being a Round Earth is more plausible unless you give us reason to believe otherwise. That's basically what I was saying. You constantly ask us to prove that the Earth is, without a doubt, round but you never seem to chalk up prove of the Earth being, without a doubt, flat. All you manage to defend is that the Earth has to be flat, but for no other reason then because it can't be round (for another odd reason which you've never managed to explain). Even if we can't prove the Earth is round, it doesn't matter because you have no proof that it is Flat and so the theory will not have any weight to the world being Flat.
It's basically like saying "Well because you can't prove it is round, it HAS to be flat regardless of any other shape it could be." Or worse, "You can't prove it's round, so it has to be flat only because it can't be round." The amount of evidence that supports a Round earth is far more numerous in quantity and quality then Flat Earth.
You guys keep claiming that you have all this cartographical data which proves that the earth is a globe. So lets see it.
The airline times thing that has been mentioned, The observable sizes of Mars and Venus in comparison to the FE sun, Constellations, problems with a FE core, photos from outerspace.
Those are some list of stuff. If you want more specific things on each one, I'm pretty sure I could rake some up.
-
Here you go tom based upon thousands of years of observations and charting of the land and water masses
Where are the observations and data?
I'll try to explain this again. Basically, Round Earthers are trying to prove that the Earth is a globe. Flat Earthers are trying to prove it's flat. That part is pretty obvious.
The thing is that though you've offered reasons for the Flat Earth being an alternative theory, there have been very few logical attacks on the Round Earth theory that have managed to succeed. Even if you manage to prove that a Flat Earth is possible, the point is that the chance of it being a Round Earth is more plausible unless you give us reason to believe otherwise. That's basically what I was saying. You constantly ask us to prove that the Earth is, without a doubt, round but you never seem to chalk up prove of the Earth being, without a doubt, flat. All you manage to defend is that the Earth has to be flat, but for no other reason then because it can't be round (for another odd reason which you've never managed to explain). Even if we can't prove the Earth is round, it doesn't matter because you have no proof that it is Flat and so the theory will not have any weight to the world being Flat.
It's basically like saying "Well because you can't prove it is round, it HAS to be flat regardless of any other shape it could be." Or worse, "You can't prove it's round, so it has to be flat only because it can't be round." The amount of evidence that supports a Round earth is far more numerous in quantity and quality then Flat Earth.
The airline times thing that has been mentioned, The observable sizes of Mars and Venus in comparison to the FE sun, Constellations, problems with a FE core, photos from outerspace.
Those are some list of stuff. If you want more specific things on each one, I'm pretty sure I could rake some up.
Still no data or observations for your model then. Got it.
-
Classic example of someone hesitant to accept change from what they have been force fed since they were young... Nothing to see here folks...
-
Here are your observations and Data, feel free to review the landmasses for accuracy
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S020l4nY9JgugAinmjzbkF/SIG=125q9dpr5/EXP=1234235128/**http%3A//www.pagina.se/disketter/20708/x3/globe.jpg)
-
What's with the "no data then" ?
We've quoted flight times that work on an accurate map. Yes?
I'm saying, the flight times, which are globally accepted by people and empirically work, cannot work on a Flat Earth map because on a flat Earth map, you cannot keep the maximum flight time 24 hours because it will always be more likely to be horizontally biased somewhere on the map.
Do you understand that Tom? What the hell are you talking about with no data? We don't need a huge list of data, we've already told you our reason, it's your turn to revoke the argument? You're just being stubborn and ridiculous at the moment.
And Classic example of someone hesitant to accept change from what they have been force fed since they were young... Nothing to see here folks...
Rofl, force fed? Or Taught? I'm pretty sure it's the Flat Earthers refusing to accept the truth here, Round Earth has a model that fits all known scientific knowledge, so if it fits for some of it, and it's not ALL a conspiracy (not all science is from NASA) as well as fitting NASA's, we should conclude that all knowledge is correct and none is a conspiracy. However, your science does not fit with anyone's accepted view of the world or of science, it is all reliant on only your own theories, therefore we can conclude that it is a Flat Earth conspiracy, rather than the other way around. And in any case, as i've already said, and i'll humor you here, let's say there is a conspiracy and NASA is hiding something:
-Global Airlines are not in on the conspiracy. Why?
--Their reason would be financial gain
--You can make more money with shorter flights, because it is less fuel expense.
--Therefore, if it were possible (like it will be inevitably on any FE map) to get to some places using less fuel than they do at the moment, they'd take that chance
--They do not. If they are in on the conspiracy, why would they take a longer flight and risk losing their ever precious money?
-Flight times are consistent, to get to the accepted opposite point on the globe takes 24 hours maximum.
--In FE theory, this will always increase somewhere on the map, even if you change the map slightly to account for any flight we quote,
--BUT we do not need to quote any to be sure that this theoretical proof is true. We need no data, Tom.
So where's your theory, (or data as you like it so much) to revoke the argument?
And if you want a bit of data: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26662.0
Check the SFO, NYC, LGW flights, it's got maths in it.
-
Not to mention the great circle that Airline pilots often fly. The great circle is the shortest path between two points along the surface of a sphere. To take any other path will increase the flight time (all else being equal) and cost due to the increased distance flown.
In a FE world the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. It is not a curved line. So, in a FE world pilots routinely and purposely take routes other than the most efficient. You'd think that the airlines were in the business to make money (ie the whole reason for the conspiracy in the first place), not to waste it.
But let me guess. The airline websites where they post the supposed flight paths of the airlines is wrong. The gps displays that the airlines show on the tv's is also wrong. And lastly, personal GPS devices that can record your path during flight are also wrong. But they're only wrong when plotting the path, they aren't wrong when you're standing still.
eg this website - http://frank.itlab.us/worldtrip_2002/ . This guy predicted his flight path based on the great circle and had his GPS confirm it. He's even been so kind as to post a text dump of his trip, but i suppose he has intentionally plotted incorrect or intentionally inefficient coordinates too.
So far i can include in the conspiracy - every airline in the world, the tibetan government (and people) and this guy C. Frank Starmer.
-
oh my goodness me, i'm extremely drunk, but as i've said Tom, we have our estimated data, and it's accurate enough to disprove Flat Earth Theory. So YOU need data to continue this argument.
Where's the data?
I could post some flight times on here (and I already have) but we have better than just one set of data, we have every flight timetable from every single airline in the world backing up round earth theory.
There is overwhelming round earth evidence integrated into the travel plans of the worlds air traffic customers. Due to this the burden of proof now lies on you if you want to suggest otherwise.
-
Here you go tom based upon thousands of years of observations and charting of the land and water masses
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S020l4nY9JgugAinmjzbkF/SIG=125q9dpr5/EXP=1234235128/**http%3A//www.pagina.se/disketter/20708/x3/globe.jpg)
Looks pretty flat to me...
-
Looks pretty flat to me...
That's probably because you have a flat screen monitor.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2139/2220125054_afeb1e3d5c.jpg?v=0)
Does that look any rounder?
-
Does that look any rounder?
How could I have been so blind?! All these years I've been living a lie!
-
Does that look any rounder?
How could I have been so blind?! All these years I've been living a lie!
Glad I could help. 8)
-
So not only is the earth flat, but it lacks focus as well. Interesting.
-
Well these 'round earth' guys are a bit backwards - they've not embraced modern camera technology yet and are still stuck at asking the Earth to 'stand still' for 5 minutes while the film exposes.
-
Well these 'round earth' guys are a bit backwards - they've not embraced modern camera technology yet and are still stuck at asking the Earth to 'stand still' for 5 minutes while the film exposes.
So you admit it is round, Victory for RE!
-
Well these 'round earth' guys are a bit backwards - they've not embraced modern camera technology yet and are still stuck at asking the Earth to 'stand still' for 5 minutes while the film exposes.
So you admit it is round, Victory for RE!
Erm, no, I admit it moves. lrn2read
-
So yeh, I feel we are digressing, the matter at hand FE'rs. Can you disprove it? I have yet to read a reliable counter-argument.
-
Well these 'round earth' guys are a bit backwards - they've not embraced modern camera technology yet and are still stuck at asking the Earth to 'stand still' for 5 minutes while the film exposes.
Right here you admit the earth is round since you acknowledge the picture is real and you also acknowledge that the earth rotates, so like I said..
Victory for RE!!
-
Well these 'round earth' guys are a bit backwards - they've not embraced modern camera technology yet and are still stuck at asking the Earth to 'stand still' for 5 minutes while the film exposes.
So you admit it is round, Victory for RE!
Erm, no, I admit it moves. lrn2read
I thought Rowbotham proved that it doesn't? ??? Maybe you need to read ENAG again.
-
So yeh, I feel we are digressing, the matter at hand FE'rs. Can you disprove it? I have yet to read a reliable counter-argument.
I think not. The common FE response to a challenge that stumps them is change the subject as quickly as possible by picknig out a minor side issue and challenging that. The best you'll get out of this thread now is petty debate far off the mark of the core issue, or perhaps another challenge to 'show them the data'.
-
The best you'll get out of this thread now is petty debate far off the mark of the core issue, or perhaps another challenge to 'show them the data'.
If you don't have the raw data to back up your claims I'm not sure why we should bother debating with you.
-
The best you'll get out of this thread now is petty debate far off the mark of the core issue, or perhaps another challenge to 'show them the data'.
If you don't have the raw data to back up your claims I'm not sure why we should bother debating with you.
Seriously, is that all you say? As i've stated several times, we do not need raw data...
Ok, on our Earth, it takes 24 hours to get to Australia from the UK, that's a fact, it takes about 24 hours.
It does NOT take 24 hours to get to South America... which on the FE map, is the same distance away.
OK, your maps are hypothetical yes...so let's move South America so it's the right distance away so one can fly to the UK in however long it takes, let's call it...12 hours.
BUT, in doing so, it means that the time it takes from South America to any other place on the planet changes, correct? yes.
Ok, so, let's say...Russia, if you move South America so it takes the empirically accurate estimated correct amount of time, the distance from S. America to Australia/UK wherever else we have just worked out, ALSO changes, meaning that BOTH CALCULATIONS cannot be correct.
Viz. The Earth is Round because the maximum time it takes for a flight is always correct, and we have calculations for it.
So, now you state your data... seeing as you've yet to post any at all.
Oh and airlines aren't in the conspiracy because as you've stated it's to do with money, see above cos someone else posted the reason in full.
Or, just admit you're wrong tbh.
-
Seriously, is that all you say? As i've stated several times, we do not need raw data...
Actually, you do. You need the raw data to demonstrate each and every one of your claims.
-
The best you'll get out of this thread now is petty debate far off the mark of the core issue, or perhaps another challenge to 'show them the data'.
If you don't have the raw data to back up your claims I'm not sure why we should bother debating with you.
Seriously, is that all you say? As i've stated several times, we do not need raw data...
Ok, on our Earth, it takes 24 hours to get to Australia from the UK, that's a fact, it takes about 24 hours.
It does NOT take 24 hours to get to South America... which on the FE map, is the same distance away.
OK, your maps are hypothetical yes...so let's move South America so it's the right distance away so one can fly to the UK in however long it takes, let's call it...12 hours.
BUT, in doing so, it means that the time it takes from South America to any other place on the planet changes, correct? yes.
Ok, so, let's say...Russia, if you move South America so it takes the empirically accurate estimated correct amount of time, the distance from S. America to Australia/UK wherever else we have just worked out, ALSO changes, meaning that BOTH CALCULATIONS cannot be correct.
Viz. The Earth is Round because the maximum time it takes for a flight is always correct, and we have calculations for it.
So, now you state your data... seeing as you've yet to post any at all.
Oh and airlines aren't in the conspiracy because as you've stated it's to do with money, see above cos someone else posted the reason in full.
Or, just admit you're wrong tbh.
How do you know the airplanes are flying along the shortest route possible? If they're using faulty maps, of course some journeys are going to take much longer than you would expect. And the maps are all based on round earth theory, so of course they're wrong.
-
The best you'll get out of this thread now is petty debate far off the mark of the core issue, or perhaps another challenge to 'show them the data'.
If you don't have the raw data to back up your claims I'm not sure why we should bother debating with you.
Tom, there is a world of difference between data and information.
-
How do you know the airplanes are flying along the shortest route possible? If they're using faulty maps, of course some journeys are going to take much longer than you would expect. And the maps are all based on round earth theory, so of course they're wrong.
Which is exactly why I've said several times that FE'ers could make a truck load of money by making and selling accurate FE maps so that airlines and shipping companies could use more efficient routes.
-
Tom, there is a world of difference between data and information.
Well when you guys have anything approaching evidence for your claims we can continue the discussion.
-
Tom, there is a world of difference between data and information.
Well when you guys have anything approaching evidence for your claims we can continue the discussion.
Do published On-Time Performance reports for airlines operating in the souther hemisphere count as evidence?
http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/otp_month.aspx
Tiger Airways achieved the highest on time arrivals among the major domestic airlines at 78.6 per cent, followed closely by Jetstar at 78.4 per cent, Qantas at 78.2 per cent, and Virgin Blue at 73.1 per cent. Skywest was also the best performing regional airlines for on time arrivals at 85.5 per cent, followed by QantasLink (76.2 per cent), MacAir (75.7 per cent) and Regional Express (72.8 per cent).
A flight is considered "on time" if it's arrival is within 15 minutes of it's published scheduled time. Since those schedules are based on RE navigation and FE trips should be much longer, I would say that this evidence does not support the assertion that the southern hemiplane of the FE is much larger than the southern hemisphere of the RE.
-
Tom, there is a world of difference between data and information.
Well when you guys have anything approaching evidence for your claims we can continue the discussion.
Do published On-Time Performance reports for airlines operating in the souther hemisphere count as evidence?
http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/otp_month.aspx
Tiger Airways achieved the highest on time arrivals among the major domestic airlines at 78.6 per cent, followed closely by Jetstar at 78.4 per cent, Qantas at 78.2 per cent, and Virgin Blue at 73.1 per cent. Skywest was also the best performing regional airlines for on time arrivals at 85.5 per cent, followed by QantasLink (76.2 per cent), MacAir (75.7 per cent) and Regional Express (72.8 per cent).
A flight is considered "on time" if it's arrival is within 15 minutes of it's published scheduled time. Since those schedules are based on RE navigation and FE trips should be much longer, I would say that this evidence does not support the assertion that the southern hemiplane of the FE is much larger than the southern hemisphere of the RE.
Were any of those flights using jet streams?
How do we know how close Australia and South America are in FE? You would need to find an airline which is taking the "long" way around in order to come to any conclusion.
-
How do we know how close Australia and South America are in FE?
It's your theory, how the hell am I supposed to know? Maybe it's time that you guys start providing some information for a change.
-
It's your theory, how the hell am I supposed to know?
If you don't know what you're trying to prove or disprove then it doesn't seem like your evidence means anything, does it?
Maybe it's time that you guys start providing some information for a change.
When you guys start donating we'll be happy to begin charting the earth mile by mile.
-
It's your theory, how the hell am I supposed to know?
If you don't know what you're trying to prove or disprove then it doesn't seem like your evidence means anything, does it?
Maybe it's time that you guys start providing some information for a change.
When you guys start donating we'll be happy to begin charting the earth mile by mile.
Go to the archives and you can get all the original data you need
-
How do you know the airplanes are flying along the shortest route possible? If they're using faulty maps, of course some journeys are going to take much longer than you would expect. And the maps are all based on round earth theory, so of course they're wrong.
Which is exactly why I've said several times that FE'ers could make a truck load of money by making and selling accurate FE maps so that airlines and shipping companies could use more efficient routes.
Not even that, Airlines would always choose shorter routes if possible, to save money, if they were in on the conspiracy. But as they're not, they are using RE systems, and therefore they should get lost, when trying to get from Australia to anywhere, because if they leave going east, they should hit the icewall theoretically.
Jet streams, Tom? it's already been stated why they're not important. Read the thread then reply.
And we HAVE information, we've already all posted it for fuck's sake! You really don't actually read do you? Because if you do, I don't understand why your posts are just "Get some information" or "get some evidence".
and here's the kicker: Our THEORY disproves flat earth, and it is undeniable. So ok, as you're not going to post evidence, try to use theory to disprove our theory. You can't, it's undeniable, therefore, as our theory is correct, and any information of ours would make no difference to it's factual status, there is no point. But EVEN SO, we have posted information, it disproves Flat Earth Theory, we've gone beyond the port of call. FET has neither another theory to counter this, or any counter-evidence from the empirical world. Therefore, at the moment, our theory should be accepted as fact. Until a counter claim can be made by FET.
FET's move.
And if you post "Show us some evidence" again, it just proves that you have no idea what you're talking about and actually have no working theory or basis for your flat earth claim
ok? Got that?
-
Go to the archives and you can get all the original data you need
So you want me to go out and find your evidence for you again?
-
The problem that is had is that there is no "accurate" Flat Earth Map that can be used.
What exactly are the dimensions of a Flat Earth? The same as Round Earth but not as high? How much height does it have then?
-
It's your theory, how the hell am I supposed to know?
If you don't know what you're trying to prove or disprove then it doesn't seem like your evidence means anything, does it?
Since when is your lack of evidence my problem? ???
Maybe it's time that you guys start providing some information for a change.
When you guys start donating we'll be happy to begin charting the earth mile by mile.
Since when is your lack of funding my problem? ???
Go to the archives and you can get all the original data you need
So you want me to go out and find your evidence for you again?
No, we want you to go out and find your evidence.
-
No, we want you to go out and find your evidence.
At TFES, the burden of proof is always on RET. Them's the rules an you knows it!
-
No, we want you to go out and find your evidence.
At TFES, the burden of proof is always on RET. Them's the rules an you knows it!
So RET has to provide FET's evidence too? ???
-
Since when is your lack of evidence my problem? ???
You kind of have to know what you're trying to disprove if you're making an augment against something. If you don't know, then you don't have much of an argument.
Since when is your lack of funding my problem? ???
When you're demanding that someone spends thousands or millions of dollars to explore and carefully map out the earth's surface it certainly is your problem to fund them.
No, we want you to go out and find your evidence.
My evidence for what? I haven't made any claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents.
So RET has to provide FET's evidence too?
If you're making a claim the burden of proof is on you and no other. Several of you RE'rs have made claims of a certain configuration of the continents in this thread. The burden is on you to prove it. There's nothing for me to prove because I haven't made any claims.
-
Since when is your lack of evidence my problem? ???
You kind of have to know what you're trying to disprove if you're making an augment against something. If you don't know, then you don't have much of an argument.
How do we know how close Australia and South America are in FE?
How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?
Since when is your lack of funding my problem? ???
When you're demanding that someone spends thousands or millions of dollars to explore and carefully map out the earth's surface it certainly is your problem to fund them.
No, it isn't. Especially when it's for a cause that I don't believe in.
No, we want you to go out and find your evidence.
My evidence for what? I haven't made any claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents.
No, but you have dismissed RE claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents without providing any evidence to the contrary. If you don't know what the true FE distance is between Australia and South America, then how can you prove that the RE distances are wrong?
So RET has to provide FET's evidence too?
If you're making a claim the burden of proof is on you and no other. Several of you RE'rs have made claims of a certain configuration of the continents in this thread. The burden is on you to prove it. There's nothing for me to prove because I haven't made any claims.
No Tom, I'm just asking you to provide specific evidence that supports your theory of the true size and form of the flat earth.
-
How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?
You're not.
No, it isn't. Especially when it's for a cause that I don't believe in.
Then don't ask for evidence if you're not willing to foot the bill.
No, but you have dismissed RE claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents without providing any evidence to the contrary. If you don't know what the true FE distance is between Australia and South America, then how can you prove that the RE distances are wrong?
I haven't dismissed anything. I just want your evidence which you say exists.
No Tom, I'm just asking you to provide specific evidence that supports your theory of the true size and form of the flat earth.
Provide me the funds and I'll be happy to provide some. Until then you can look up the evidence the Flat Earth Society has already collected in the Flat Earth Literature.
-
How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?
Your not.
No, it isn't. Especially when it's for a cause that I don't believe in.
Then don't ask for evidence if you're not willing to foot the bill.
No, but you have dismissed RE claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents without providing any evidence to the contrary. If you don't know what the true FE distance is between Australia and South America, then how can you prove that the RE distances are wrong?
I haven't dismissed anything. I just want your evidence which you say exists.
No Tom, I'm just asking you to provide specific evidence that supports your theory of the true size and form of the flat earth.
Provide me the funds and I'll be happy to provide some. Until then you can look up the evidence the Flat Earth Society has already collected in the Flat Earth Literature.
So no actual rebuttal of my informational evidence, which actually has real theory and figures? Didn't think so.
-
just as a curiosity Tom if you were to take one of those trips to the (supposed) south pole what would you think about it? Would this convince you of a round earth or would you need more evidence? If you needed more evidence, what _would_ you accept as firm evidence of a round earth. Would you need a trip into space (assuming it was possible) or something else?
-
How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?
Your not.
Then how do you know that the RE distances are wrong?
No, it isn't. Especially when it's for a cause that I don't believe in.
Then don't ask for evidence if you're not willing to foot the bill.
Sorry Tom, I keep forgetting that FE doesn't need to support their theory with evidence. ::)
No, but you have dismissed RE claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents without providing any evidence to the contrary. If you don't know what the true FE distance is between Australia and South America, then how can you prove that the RE distances are wrong?
I haven't dismissed anything. I just want your evidence which you say exists.
Here is an RE tool that you can use to measure distances between various location on the Earth:
http://www.earth-download-new.com/2/index.asp
Map your favorite contacts. Display their picture on a map for easy viewing and directions. Find travel distance and surrounding areas to your business associates.
No Tom, I'm just asking you to provide specific evidence that supports your theory of the true size and form of the flat earth.
Provide me the funds and I'll be happy to provide some. Until then you can look up the evidence the Flat Earth Society has already collected in the Flat Earth Literature.
I've read ENAG and Zetetic Cosmology. Both works have so many fundamental errors that they are useless as references.
-
How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?
Your not.
To produce a FE map would require research (i.e. lots hard, boring and costly work). This does not lend itself to a typical FEer's lifestyle of sitting in a chair and looking out of the window.
-
How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?
Your not.
To produce a FE map would require research (i.e. lots hard, boring and costly work). This does not lend itself to a typical FEer's lifestyle of sitting in a chair and looking out of the window.
Unfortunately scientific paradigms that are not in fashion do not get the grant money. Try being a physicist who does not agree with string theory and see how far you get in your grant proposals.
-
How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?
Your not.
To produce a FE map would require research (i.e. lots hard, boring and costly work). This does not lend itself to a typical FEer's lifestyle of sitting in a chair and looking out of the window.
Unfortunately scientific paradigms that are not in fashion do not get the grant money. Try being a physicist who does not agree with string theory and see how far you get in your grant proposals.
So how did string theory get the funding to become fashionable? ???
-
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/02/01/SeaCableHi.jpg is a map of undersea cables. It strikes me that someone may have said something if they had run out of cable when laying in the southern hemisphere.
Also I don't think funding is the reason that scientists have been reticent to (re)map the southern hemisphere.
-
How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?
Your not.
To produce a FE map would require research (i.e. lots hard, boring and costly work). This does not lend itself to a typical FEer's lifestyle of sitting in a chair and looking out of the window.
Unfortunately scientific paradigms that are not in fashion do not get the grant money. Try being a physicist who does not agree with string theory and see how far you get in your grant proposals.
So how did string theory get the funding to become fashionable? ???
It's like fashion - there's no real logic to it. In modern physics truth has only minimal significance, it's all about making your paper sexy. If you don't believe me, read up on some of the great work by the Bogdanoff brothers.
-
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/02/01/SeaCableHi.jpg is a map of undersea cables. It strikes me that someone may have said something if they had run out of cable when laying in the southern hemisphere.
Also I don't think funding is the reason that scientists have been reticent to (re)map the southern hemisphere.
Hmmm.. fascinating! I notice that there are many, many more north-south cables than east-west ones. I wonder why that is? Maybe the distances N-S are easier to calculate and plan than the E-W ones? Most of the cables would have similar lengths on RE and FE maps.
-
Are we looking at the same map? The vast majority are east west. From Europe to the US and from the US to the Far East. Most of the North south ones are the ones at run along coasts.
-
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/02/01/SeaCableHi.jpg is a map of undersea cables. It strikes me that someone may have said something if they had run out of cable when laying in the southern hemisphere.
Also I don't think funding is the reason that scientists have been reticent to (re)map the southern hemisphere.
Hmmm.. fascinating! I notice that there are many, many more north-south cables than east-west ones. I wonder why that is? Maybe the distances N-S are easier to calculate and plan than the E-W ones? Most of the cables would have similar lengths on RE and FE maps.
Actually, north-south cable runs would be just as bad as, if not worse than, east-west. FE'ers around here have been assuming that latitude lines are evenly spaced on a FE when in fact they are not.
-
Then how do you know that the RE distances are wrong?
You guys don't have any raw evidence for your RE distances, and are unwilling to present any. So how am I supposed to know whether they're right?
Sorry Tom, I keep forgetting that FE doesn't need to support their theory with evidence.
If you want a study done on this or that, or whatever you're demanding from one day to the next, it's your obligation to finance your requests. No one is obligated to go out and conduct studies for you as an act of charity. If you want something done you have to be willing to foot the bill.
Here is an RE tool that you can use to measure distances between various location on the Earth:
http://www.earth-download-new.com/2/index.asp
Map your favorite contacts. Display their picture on a map for easy viewing and directions. Find travel distance and surrounding areas to your business associates.
Will that computer program charter a ship to circumnavigate the entire lower southern hemisphere? If not it doesn't seem like it would be very helpful for telling us the true magnitude of the earth.
I've read ENAG and Zetetic Cosmology. Both works have so many fundamental errors that they are useless as references.
How would you know that they are in error if you haven't peer reviewed their work by reproducing the studies and experiements?
-
Then how do you know that the RE distances are wrong?
You guys don't have any raw evidence for your RE distances, and are unwilling to present any. So how am I supposed to know whether they're right?
I already told you about my 1200 mile road trip to Florida that FET said should have been more than 2200 miles.
Sorry Tom, I keep forgetting that FE doesn't need to support their theory with evidence.
If you want a study done on this or that, or whatever you're demanding from one day to the next, it's your obligation to finance your requests. No one is obligated to go out and conduct studies for you as an act of charity. If you want something done you have to be willing to foot the bill.
So advancing the the cause of Flat Earth research is charity?
Here is an RE tool that you can use to measure distances between various location on the Earth:
http://www.earth-download-new.com/2/index.asp
Map your favorite contacts. Display their picture on a map for easy viewing and directions. Find travel distance and surrounding areas to your business associates.
Will that computer program charter a ship to circumnavigate the entire lower southern hemisphere? If not it doesn't seem like it would be very helpful for telling us the true magnitude of the earth.
Last I knew, Google Earth is not a navigational application, and I don't believe that I presented it as one.
I've read ENAG and Zetetic Cosmology. Both works have so many fundamental errors that they are useless as references.
How would you know that they are in error if you haven't peer reviewed their work by reproducing the studies and experiements?
The wrong assumptions that Winship and Rowbotham based their experiments upon make them senseless to recreate.
-
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.
Do you have any data that you are right?
-
I just want to point out that you don't exactly need thousands of dollars worth of funding to prove something
http://space.about.com/cs/astronomerbios/a/Eratosthenesbio.htm
A stick and the sun do just fine. Not only that, but if you look to the past, people did not need to spend gigantic amounts of money in order to map things.
-
A stick and the sun do just fine.
I think you mean a stick and a sun and an assumption that the earth is round. Because if a Flat Earth is assumed Eratosthenes' experiment gives us data corresponding to the Flat Earth model.
I already told you about my 1200 mile road trip to Florida that FET said should have been more than 2200 miles.
No it didn't.
So advancing the the cause of Flat Earth research is charity?
If you want a study done you have to be willing to pay for it your own damn self. I'm under no obligation to pay for whatever data you're demanding from one day to the next.
Last I knew, Google Earth is not a navigational application, and I don't believe that I presented it as one.
So how does Google Earth prove the configuration of the earth's landmasses again? ???
The wrong assumptions that Winship and Rowbotham based their experiments upon make them senseless to recreate.
If you haven't recreated the experiments at all I don't see how you're in any position to say whether they are incorrect.
-
Do you have any data that you are right?
There's a library of data in my signature link.
-
All these arguments aside, you're not even talking about the point anymore: Flight times and distances disprove FET, and there's no theory, let alone data, and proves it otherwise. So at the moment, the paradigm should hold that the Earth is round.
-
Do you have any data that you are right?
There's a library of data in my signature link.
Do you have any data that your sorces are right?
-
All these arguments aside, you're not even talking about the point anymore: Flight times and distances disprove FET, and there's no theory, let alone data, and proves it otherwise. So at the moment, the paradigm should hold that the Earth is round.
I keep asking for the raw data which disproves FET and proves an RET, but you guys keep not presenting any.
Do you have any data that your sorces are right?
The sources are peer reviewed. Therefore they are valid as evidence and corroborated beyond doubt.
-
Why do you put so much trust into the peer reviews? What if they're part of a even bigger conspiracy? Or maybe the FET and the RET are both part of one mega conspiracy?
-
I already told you about my 1200 mile road trip to Florida that FET said should have been more than 2200 miles.
No it didn't.
Then do tell, what does FET say the distance should have been?
So advancing the the cause of Flat Earth research is charity?
If you want a study done you have to be willing to pay for it your own damn self. I'm under no obligation to pay for whatever data you're demanding from one day to the next.
In other words you can make all the outlandish claims that you want and never have to back any of them up with any data. ::)
Last I knew, Google Earth is not a navigational application, and I don't believe that I presented it as one.
So how does Google Earth prove the configuration of the earth's landmasses again? ???
Ask Google, it's their application.
The wrong assumptions that Winship and Rowbotham based their experiments upon make them senseless to recreate.
If you haven't recreated the experiments at all I don't see how you're in any position to say whether they are incorrect.
How can I recreate any of those experiments if they have not been properly documented? When Rowbotham did his Bedford Level experiment, did he make observations going both ways in order to reduce the possibility of a superior mirage? Did he level his telescope? How powerful was his telescope? Did he test to see if the water was flowing at all (thereby indicating that there was a slope in the water surface)?
By the way, I have yet to see any evidence that you have recreated any of those experiments like you have repeatedly claimed to have done.
-
Why do you put so much trust into the peer reviews?
Because peer review is what makes an experiment or study valid as evidence.
Educate yourself.
Then do tell, what does FET say the distance should have been?
FET doesn't say anything about what the distance would have been.
In other words you can make all the outlandish claims that you want and never have to back any of them up with any data.
Wrong. I've never made any claims for the distance between the continents. In fact, I clearly stated that the current flat earth map was a hypothesis in my very first post in this thread.
The only one here making distance claims here is you. And, unsurprisingly, you still haven't provided the evidence to back up those claims.
-
How can I recreate any of those experiments if they have not been properly documented? When Rowbotham did his Bedford Level experiment, did he make observations going both ways in order to reduce the possibility of a superior mirage?
Rowbotham already accounts for the possibility of a superior mirage. See Experiment 9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm), for instance:
...
The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.
Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.
In may, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.
Did he level his telescope?
He sure did.
How powerful was his telescope?
Rowbotham actually used a variety of telescopes over his 30 year study.
Did he test to see if the water was flowing at all (thereby indicating that there was a slope in the water surface)?
Yep. In his work he describes the canal as standing and completely still at the time of the experiment.
-
How can I recreate any of those experiments if they have not been properly documented? When Rowbotham did his Bedford Level experiment, did he make observations going both ways in order to reduce the possibility of a superior mirage?
Rowbotham already accounts for the possibility of a superior mirage. See Experiment 9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm), for instance:
I don't see anywhere in that passage where he said that he checked the temperature or humidity at different heights above the water. Remember that temperature inversions at different heights are responsible for mirages. As near as I can tell, Rowbotham only checked one elevation at either end. Not sufficient to tell if such inversions are present.
Did he level his telescope?
He sure did.
He did at Rotunda, in Dublin. He didn't say anything about about it at Bedford.
How powerful was his telescope?
Rowbotham actually used a variety of telescopes over his 30 year study.
I'm interested how many telescopes he used over the years. I'm interested in which telescope he used for that particular experiment.
Did he test to see if the water was flowing at all (thereby indicating that there was a slope in the water surface)?
Yep. In his work he describes the canal as standing and completely still at the time of the experiment.
How did he determine that?
-
The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude.
Says who? I did a quick search that suggests that it's typically 15% of the altitude.
One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made.
What was the tolerance of the equipment used? Why are these values not recorded?
-
I don't see anywhere in that passage where he said that he checked the temperature or humidity at different heights above the water. Remember that temperature inversions at different heights are responsible for mirages. As near as I can tell, Rowbotham only checked one elevation at either end. Not sufficient to tell if such inversions are present.
Yes it is.
He did at Rotunda, in Dublin. He didn't say anything about about it at Bedford.
Rowbotham is always aligning his telescope with the horizon, which is level to the surface of the earth.
I'm interested how many telescopes he used over the years. I'm interested in which telescope he used for that particular experiment
The type of telescope doesn't really matter, but Rowbotham mentions in his lectures that he uses a high quality newtonian.
How did he determine that?
He was there standing in it.
-
Says who? I did a quick search that suggests that it's typically 15% of the altitude.
Incorrect.
What was the tolerance of the equipment used? Why are these values not recorded?
The tolerance was sufficient and the values were recorded and compared, just like it says in the passage.
-
Incorrect.
Again, says who?
The tolerance was sufficient and the values were recorded and compared, just like it says in the passage.
I don't want to know if the tolerance was sufficient, I want to know what it is. Why isn't it recorded? Where are these recorded values?
-
If you read some old research papers you'll find their take on error analysis to be somewhat... lax... compared to modern standards. In the famous Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment the analysis was basically that "the fringes didn't seem to move"... as measured by eye, completely subjectively. This was later made quantitative and improved, of course, but the initial paper was littered with stuff like that. Makes for an easy and interesting read, but not so good from a scientific rigour point of view. Rowbotham could be forgiven given some of the established standards of the time, I suspect.
-
Then it's a good thing that Michelson-Morley has been redone many times over the years with increasingly better equipment and documentation as well as more rigorous error analysis. Sadly, the same doesn't appear to be true for Rwobotham's experiments.
-
It would be nice to see some error bars...
-
Did any FE'er ever come up with a reason why flight times are how they are?
-
How do you expect us to believe in a flat earth if you even have a map that we can use to fly around the world?
tom, you always post the same stupy question about where is the raw data. but the data is in front of your face.
-
How do you expect us to believe in a flat earth if you even have a map that we can use to fly around the world?
tom, you always post the same stupy question about where is the raw data. but the data is in front of your face.
What data?
-
How do you expect us to believe in a flat earth if you even have a map that we can use to fly around the world?
tom, you always post the same stupy question about where is the raw data. but the data is in front of your face.
What data?
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26662.0 Found some.
Found some
Found some
Found some
Got it? and read THIS VERY THREAD. People have posted links and flight times. Stop asking for data when we've already given it to you.
You have no actual response ever, it's always retarded questions picking up on things that have either already been stated, or are not relevant.
-
How do you expect us to believe in a flat earth if you even have a map that we can use to fly around the world?
tom, you always post the same stupy question about where is the raw data. but the data is in front of your face.
What data?
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26662.0 Found some.
Found some
Found some
Found some
Got it? and read THIS VERY THREAD. People have posted links and flight times. Stop asking for data when we've already given it to you.
You have no actual response ever, it's always retarded questions picking up on things that have either already been stated, or are not relevant.
Show me the data.
-
Show me the data.
He just did, but you clearly refused to look at it. Now answer the question without saying show me the data, because as you very well know, you already have it. Your constant asking "Show me the data" is simply a diversionary tactic because you are unable to answer why flight times are the way they are.
-
7 pages of this. Astounding.
-
How do you expect us to believe in a flat earth if you even have a map that we can use to fly around the world?
tom, you always post the same stupy question about where is the raw data. but the data is in front of your face.
What data?
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26662.0 Found some.
Found some
Found some
Found some
Got it? and read THIS VERY THREAD. People have posted links and flight times. Stop asking for data when we've already given it to you.
You have no actual response ever, it's always retarded questions picking up on things that have either already been stated, or are not relevant.
Show me the data.
I'm still waiting for your answer to how a celestial body is able to be solid enough to block our view of the Moon, but be completely transparent enough to be blocked out by the sun Mr. Bishop.
-
we're waiting for many many answers. Repeated "Show me the data" posts are just proof that either Tom Bishop is a troll, or the Earth is round.
-
we're waiting for many many answers. Repeated "Show me the data" posts are just proof that either Tom Bishop is a troll, or the Earth is round.
Actually it just means that your side has no data. Unsurprising to say the least.
-
Actually it just means that your side has no data. Unsurprising to say the least.
Don't say that. You are shown data at least hundred times in this forum but you claim that it's no data. FE side is this who doesn't have any observational data.
-
You are shown data at least hundred times in this forum but you claim that it's no data.
I keep asking for some, but there is none.
-
You are shown data at least hundred times in this forum but you claim that it's no data.
I keep asking for some, but there is none.
Lurk moar and use search feature. There is.
-
Lurk moar and use search feature. There is.
If you have data post it. If you don't, go away.
-
It's already posted. Use search feature or are you not capable of doing it?
-
If you have data post it. If you don't, go away.
-
I see, you are not capable of using search feature in this forum, sad.
-
I see, you are not capable of using search feature in this forum, sad.
I searched for data and all I could find was posts of me asking you guys for data and you guys providing none.
-
I searched for data and all I could find was posts of me asking you guys for data and you guys providing none.
Ok, I'm wrong. You can use search but seems that you are incapable of interpreting results. Sad again.
-
(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq153/robbyj717/reproof.jpg)
-
I see, you are not capable of using search feature in this forum, sad.
I searched for data and all I could find was posts of me asking you guys for data and you guys providing none.
I've just kind of skim read this thread so maybe I'm missing something, but are you just asking for proof that the flights take as long as the airlines say they do? Have you been on any very long distance flights? If so, why don't you just go on the website of an airline and check that the flight periods stated are similar to the ones you've experienced yourself?
-
Ok, I'm wrong. You can use search but seems that you are incapable of interpreting results. Sad again.
I did interpret the results. The results were interpreted as your side having no data.
-
I did interpret the results. The results were interpreted as your side having no data.
I guess you searched then for yourself posts where you do say "where is data" and "there is no data". This is the only way to get that result.
-
(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq153/robbyj717/reproof.jpg)
Robbyj just won the thread.
-
(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq153/robbyj717/reproof.jpg)
(http://i44.tinypic.com/24wc8cg.jpg)
-
Awww :(
-
This is pretty intense stuff
-
Well it's more solid data than we've had so far!
-
The only problem with finding RE proof now is that the beliefe is so widly spread not that many new things are written about the round Earth, because we all asume the world is Round.
That's where the FE'ers always get us, it's a sad thing. But at the same time FE'ers only have a limited amount of sorces that state the Earth is flat.
So in a way both sides cannot be proven.
-
Well when you manage to gather the flight logs necessary to disprove every possible FE map configuration please send me a PM so we can continue our discussion.
I've experienced spherical earth first hand and so have millions of people on this planet. You dont need to go into space to experience round earth, you just have to have to be well travelled.
obviously these people are not well travelled as they are all basement dwellers (at their moms house)
-
I've experienced spherical earth first hand and so have millions of people on this planet. You dont need to go into space to experience round earth, you just have to have to be well travelled.
obviously these people are not well travelled as they are all basement dwellers (at their moms house)
In order: FAQ. Fail.
-
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.
Here's a quick example of some of this data plucked off the internet.
England to Australia: 24 hours
Australia to South America: 17 hours
http://www.blurtit.com/q496939.html
http://www.convertunits.com/time/from/brisbane,+australia/to/south+america
Now before you question the integrity of this data I should point out that you could go to any airline or any website and the figures will be similar. These are just examples but they are consistent with the truth.
This example alone concludes that Australia cannot be the other side of a disk to South America.
If you were to place South America on another place on a disc compared to Australia I could prove it wrong with another flight time. We could keep doing this until you had to concede the flat earth theory is false.
The truth is the flight times from country to country ONLY correlate when you have a ROUND earth.
Ok, I'm wrong. You can use search but seems that you are incapable of interpreting results. Sad again.
I did interpret the results. The results were interpreted as your side having no data.
I see, you are not capable of using search feature in this forum, sad.
I searched for data and all I could find was posts of me asking you guys for data and you guys providing none.
So, the first quote was pretty early on in this thread. Yet you are still asking for data...
Also, this: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26662.0
So, explain how a flat earth is possible?
-
Having gone through this thread, we can determine that Tom Bishop is indeed very childish, needlessly stubborn and desperate for attention.
The thing is, no one can prove anything to such an extent that is 100% fact. Instead, with most humans being rational thinkers, we compare evidence provided by both sides of the matter. We then make our own judgment, usually based upon the evidence given to us. Some "evidence" is blatantly false, yet other pieces of evidence are almost fact, which can only be disproven if the whole universe we are surrounded by is false.
You ask for 100% solid, disproveable data, however, this does not exist. Thus, this would mean that you yourself have no solid data to support your Massively flawed argument. Having my self been on a concord, which is at 45,000 feet, I have just seen that the Earth is indeed round. And no, I am not part of this "conspiracy", learn to let go...........
-
On this point: anybody who has flown in a jet over the ocean in a window seat knows that when you look at the horizon it is round-shaped.
[edit]
http://flickr.com/photos/anjum/2229579511/
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2213/2229579511_06b3f7ee26.jpg?v=0)
If that's not a curve I don't know what is. They even have a straight line drawn on that picture in the link I give.
All I did was google 'horizon curvature', there's a ton.
-
On this point: anybody who has flown in a jet over the ocean in a window seat knows that when you look at the horizon it is round-shaped.
This has been mathematically discounted through simple geometric arguments even in a RET world previously - search for it.
Having my self been on a concord, which is at 45,000 feet, I have just seen that the Earth is indeed round. And no, I am not part of this "conspiracy", learn to let go...........
Did you get any pictures?
-
http://images.google.com/images?q=private+rocketry+pictures
The SpaceX pictures are pretty cool, but of course that was for a NASA sponsored competition, so obviously NASA was in control of all of the privately owned businesses who had private sector scientists doing the research.
-
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.
Convincing data are already in the forums. SEARCH for the truth, if you dare.
-
If that's not a curve I don't know what is. They even have a straight line drawn on that picture in the link I give.
Wide angle lenses can artificially introduce curvature into photographs.
-
Honestly, i went into this thread with an open mind. Im trying to think of what i could compare it to... its like comparing if george washington existed to if the flying spaghetti monster ever existed.
The RE'ers provide significant data showing he exists.
The FE'ers saying until you dig up his bones and show DNA samples, he never existed.
The RE'ers ask for data on whether the flying spaghetti monster ever existed.
The FE'ers saying until you dig up his bones and show DNA samples of george washington, he never existed.
-
Honestly, i went into this thread with an open mind. Im trying to think of what i could compare it to... its like comparing if george washington existed to if the flying spaghetti monster ever existed.
As I recall, there was at least one pastafarian that posted fairly regularly for a while.
-
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
How can you devote all this time to a map that is just hypothetical? At least RE'ers have ton of scientific data to back up our clam. There is not one shread of scienctific proof that I have seen that cant be explained by having a RE. This is not a relegion. You cant say just have faith. There are things that a FE just cant account for due to the laws of physics. (I wont get into them now)
-
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
How can you devote all this time to a map that is just hypothetical? At least RE'ers have ton of scientific data to back up our clam. There is not one shread of scienctific proof that I have seen that cant be explained by having a RE. This is not a relegion. You cant say just have faith. There are things that a FE just cant account for due to the laws of physics. (I wont get into them now)
I back your clam also. You should keep it shut though, or things will get into it.
-
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
How can you devote all this time to a map that is just hypothetical? At least RE'ers have ton of scientific data to back up our clam. There is not one shread of scienctific proof that I have seen that cant be explained by having a RE. This is not a relegion. You cant say just have faith. There are things that a FE just cant account for due to the laws of physics. (I wont get into them now)
I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.
I back your clam also. You should keep it shut though, or things will get into it.
-
I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.
(http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp304/Ravenwood240/Post%20Pictures/sigh1.jpg)
You're missing one big point. According to FE canon, the earth is not a planet like the other things in the solar system. Therefore, it doesn't have to be the same as they are.
Read the FAQ.
-
I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.
(http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp304/Ravenwood240/sigh1.jpg)
You're missing one big point. According to FE canon, the earth is not a planet like the other things in the solar system. Therefore, it doesn't have to be the same as they are.
Read the FAQ.
I did read th FAQs, but the earth is still part of this universe correct? If it is then there are certian rules it has to follow. ie.. the fact that it does not have as much mass as jupiter therefore jupiter would not rotate around us but us around jupiter. So would every other planet for that matter since the sun would be small according to beliefs
-
I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.
(http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp304/Ravenwood240/sigh1.jpg)
You're missing one big point. According to FE canon, the earth is not a planet like the other things in the solar system. Therefore, it doesn't have to be the same as they are.
Read the FAQ.
I did read th FAQs, but the earth is still part of this universe correct? If it is then there are certian rules it has to follow. ie.. the fact that it does not have as much mass as jupiter therefore jupiter would not rotate around us but us around jupiter. So would every other planet for that matter since the sun would be small according to beliefs
In FE theory, the heavenly bodies are much smaller than in RE. The Earth is actually much more massive than anything visibly above us.
-
I have a couple of reservations with this. Firstly it means that we need a totally new explanation for how stars shine. This is more of a problem that it sounds because spectral lines from the sun tell us its chemical composition and suggest very strongly that nuclear fusion is going on inside. So can we tell how far away the sun is without using celestial mechanics. Yes, we can, at least if you live a long way north of south. One can simply look through a telescope and look for a large solar flare and then time how long it takes for the increase in solar particles to cause a particularly bright northern lights. From this we can tell that either that particles are very highly relativistic or the sun is a very long way away. We know that that the particles although fast are not highly relativstic so we conclude that the sun is far away.
Now the stars. Once again we are left with the mechanism by which they shine. Some stars are far hotter than the sun yet according to the FE model comparatively tiny again there is nothing in modern physics to explain how such a phenomenon would occur. Cosmic particles, the Earth is regularly bombarded by particles far higher than in the LHC up to 1018eV and above. Could this not come from nearby? Well assuming that they are not being fired at us by some particle accelerator but are being emitted isotropically then you would not want to be within a few light years of such a body. Though there is a more elegant argument relates to interactions of cosmic particles. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) provides a source of relatively low energy photons with which cosmic particles can interact. Above about 1019eV the following interaction can occur.
proton + photon -> Delta -> neutron + pion
We see a large drop in very high energy cosmic particles reaching Earth due to this interaction. If the sources were closer than 10's of light years we would no see a significant fall in the number of particles.
-
I have a couple of reservations with this. Firstly it means that we need a totally new explanation for how stars shine. This is more of a problem that it sounds because spectral lines from the sun tell us its chemical composition and suggest very strongly that nuclear fusion is going on inside. So can we tell how far away the sun is without using celestial mechanics. Yes, we can, at least if you live a long way north of south. One can simply look through a telescope and look for a large solar flare and then time how long it takes for the increase in solar particles to cause a particularly bright northern lights. From this we can tell that either that particles are very highly relativistic or the sun is a very long way away. We know that that the particles although fast are not highly relativstic so we conclude that the sun is far away.
Now the stars. Once again we are left with the mechanism by which they shine. Some stars are far hotter than the sun yet according to the FE model comparatively tiny again there is nothing in modern physics to explain how such a phenomenon would occur. Cosmic particles, the Earth is regularly bombarded by particles far higher than in the LHC up to 1018eV and above. Could this not come from nearby? Well assuming that they are not being fired at us by some particle accelerator but are being emitted isotropically then you would not want to be within a few light years of such a body. Though there is a more elegant argument relates to interactions of cosmic particles. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) provides a source of relatively low energy photons with which cosmic particles can interact. Above about 1019eV the following interaction can occur.
proton + photon -> Delta -> neutron + pion
We see a large drop in very high energy cosmic particles reaching Earth due to this interaction. If the sources were closer than 10's of light years we would no see a significant fall in the number of particles.
I hate to admit this because I love science but can you explain this a bit more in laymans terms. I only understood about half of what you said
-
I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.
(http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp304/Ravenwood240/sigh1.jpg)
You're missing one big point. According to FE canon, the earth is not a planet like the other things in the solar system. Therefore, it doesn't have to be the same as they are.
Read the FAQ.
I did read th FAQs, but the earth is still part of this universe correct? If it is then there are certian rules it has to follow. ie.. the fact that it does not have as much mass as jupiter therefore jupiter would not rotate around us but us around jupiter. So would every other planet for that matter since the sun would be small according to beliefs
In FE theory, the heavenly bodies are much smaller than in RE. The Earth is actually much more massive than anything visibly above us.
So please explain to me how a planet that is smaller the earth could have so many moons like saturan or jupiter. This is some thing that has been proven and that you can see for yourself with a good store brought telescope. From the way you are speaking we are by far the largest object in the solar system. For us to have the type of gravintaonal pull needed to keep all our planets in our orbit we would have to be massive truely massive like the size of the RE sun. But we still run into another problem. If earth has no gravity what is forcing our solar system to revolve around us. In the RE senerio the suns gravity is what keep us from flying out into the cold depths of space. In the RE senerio the earths gravity is what keeps the moon in orbit. In th FE senerio what is causing the planets to rotate around us. I understand that the Au (I think it's called that) is forcing us up at speeds approching the speed of light. (i can understand it but I don't believe it.) There is still nothing to explain our soloar system. If our solar system is as small as you suggest then we would have some major problems as far as planets colliding.
-
I dont even know why i bother because Tom is just going to come up with some cock and bull "no data" way out anyway but...
I dont understand why you (Tom) dont have sufficient data to do simple geographical equations based on flight times to prove an arch in the earths surface. The RE'rs have posted sites, explained reasoning, have done equations, basically done all the work they can do and them some. They have even posted IN DETAIL there reasoning and mathematical basis for their theories, yet you still need data? I feel that if they were to take you into space and orbit the earth, all you would do is blindfold yourself and say "i see nothing that disproves my point". I deem that Tom should be removed from all intellectual criteria from this point on, he has no scientific reasoning of why the data is insufficient nor does he specify what more he wants, simply "more"... "more" what? Flight times? Equations? Explanations? Perhaps if you explained what KIND of data you want we would be able to provide this "data" for you because you simply choose not to look for it yourself. As it has been stated in this thread before, Tom continually asks for proof that the earth is round and we oblige, yet when we ask for data that the earth is flat (and simple geographical equations or a valid time/travel ratio would suffice) you simply say "no funding". I dont see where funding is needed to do mathematical equations (such as the RE'rs have done) to at least give us a valid scientifically reasoning for why it may perhaps be flat. In short all i see when i read this thread (in its entirety) is as follows;
FE'rs: The earth is flat
RE'rs: Here are mathematical equations that prove the earth is round, i would like to discuss this and see what mathematical equations you have to prove your point.
FE'rs: That equation isnt sufficient enough
RE'rs: I beg to differ, it involves the travel/time ratio due to curvature of the earth, please tell me what you would like more.
FE'rs: More data.
Re'rs: What kind.
FE'rs: More, this is insufficient.
Needless to say, being a new member, it makes me think that the RET is more inclined to be true due to proof that they have provided and the lack of data the FET has provided.
-
I dont even know why i bother because Tom is just going to come up with some cock and bull "no data" way out anyway but...
I dont understand why you (Tom) dont have sufficient data to do simple geographical equations based on flight times to prove an arch in the earths surface. The RE'rs have posted sites, explained reasoning, have done equations, basically done all the work they can do and them some. They have even posted IN DETAIL there reasoning and mathematical basis for their theories, yet you still need data? I feel that if they were to take you into space and orbit the earth, all you would do is blindfold yourself and say "i see nothing that disproves my point". I deem that Tom should be removed from all intellectual criteria from this point on, he has no scientific reasoning of why the data is insufficient nor does he specify what more he wants, simply "more"... "more" what? Flight times? Equations? Explanations? Perhaps if you explained what KIND of data you want we would be able to provide this "data" for you because you simply choose not to look for it yourself. As it has been stated in this thread before, Tom continually asks for proof that the earth is round and we oblige, yet when we ask for data that the earth is flat (and simple geographical equations or a valid time/travel ratio would suffice) you simply say "no funding". I dont see where funding is needed to do mathematical equations (such as the RE'rs have done) to at least give us a valid scientifically reasoning for why it may perhaps be flat. In short all i see when i read this thread (in its entirety) is as follows;
FE'rs: The earth is flat
RE'rs: Here are mathematical equations that prove the earth is round, i would like to discuss this and see what mathematical equations you have to prove your point.
FE'rs: That equation isnt sufficient enough
RE'rs: I beg to differ, it involves the travel/time ratio due to curvature of the earth, please tell me what you would like more.
FE'rs: More data.
Re'rs: What kind.
FE'rs: More, this is insufficient.
Needless to say, being a new member, it makes me think that the RET is more inclined to be true due to proof that they have provided and the lack of data the FET has provided.
I agree with you pla sable, but why get rid of Tom? Yes he's annoying and extremely repetitive, but without him then what's the fun of messing with the FE'ers? We need somebody so stuck to his beliefs that others are willing to follow in order to mess with them, if not they won't have a devoted leader to keep them on track in their beliefs.
As much as all of us want them to open their eyes and see a round, spherical Earth. It's still fun to mess with them.
-
I dont even know why i bother because Tom is just going to come up with some cock and bull "no data" way out anyway but...
I dont understand why you (Tom) dont have sufficient data to do simple geographical equations based on flight times to prove an arch in the earths surface. The RE'rs have posted sites, explained reasoning, have done equations, basically done all the work they can do and them some. They have even posted IN DETAIL there reasoning and mathematical basis for their theories, yet you still need data? I feel that if they were to take you into space and orbit the earth, all you would do is blindfold yourself and say "i see nothing that disproves my point". I deem that Tom should be removed from all intellectual criteria from this point on, he has no scientific reasoning of why the data is insufficient nor does he specify what more he wants, simply "more"... "more" what? Flight times? Equations? Explanations? Perhaps if you explained what KIND of data you want we would be able to provide this "data" for you because you simply choose not to look for it yourself. As it has been stated in this thread before, Tom continually asks for proof that the earth is round and we oblige, yet when we ask for data that the earth is flat (and simple geographical equations or a valid time/travel ratio would suffice) you simply say "no funding". I dont see where funding is needed to do mathematical equations (such as the RE'rs have done) to at least give us a valid scientifically reasoning for why it may perhaps be flat. In short all i see when i read this thread (in its entirety) is as follows;
FE'rs: The earth is flat
RE'rs: Here are mathematical equations that prove the earth is round, i would like to discuss this and see what mathematical equations you have to prove your point.
FE'rs: That equation isnt sufficient enough
RE'rs: I beg to differ, it involves the travel/time ratio due to curvature of the earth, please tell me what you would like more.
FE'rs: More data.
Re'rs: What kind.
FE'rs: More, this is insufficient.
Needless to say, being a new member, it makes me think that the RET is more inclined to be true due to proof that they have provided and the lack of data the FET has provided.
you act as if tom is a scientist when he is really the same thing as tom cruise and his Scientology.
-
OK, here is the World Map Creation System.
1) Go to Travel agents and get the times for their international flights. If the times between two cities are similar in both directions then we know that no "Jet Stream" like air currents are effecting the flight.
2) Get thin flexible wire/tube that has a bit of rigidity, like plastic fishtank hose (one for each flight detail you get).
3) Using a common scale, say 1 cm = 1 hour, cut the lengths of hose to the length of the flight times (label them with the start end cities so you remember what each is).
4) Connect all the hoses together joining the ends with the same cities together for all the lengths of hose.
What you have here is a representation of the flight times, of the various routes. But not only that, you have represented them as spatial relationships. As the actual flight times represent spatial relationships between locations on the Earth, you have just used the this data to show the spatial relationships between the various cities around the world and so reflects the actual geometrical relationship between the cities.
In other words, if the Earth is flat, then you will get a disk, if the Earht is round, then you will get a sphere.
As this is not perfect, there will be some errors (it won't be a perfectly flat plane or a perfect sphere). However, what is important is the connectivity between them. The connectivity between a Spherical and a flat Earth are so different as to be unmistakeable (the sphere will enclose a volume and the disk will not).
This is a really cheap way to make a map. It does not take a lot of effort (and some people find this fun too), and the data is available (and BTW Tom, it has been posted on the forums. Learn to use the search function or just lurk more) and easily gathered with minimal effort (a few phone calls, a trip to your local travel agents, even just go to their web sites, etc) and can be reliable as there are millions of people checking the reliability every day (every single person that has ever got on an international flight).
So here is reliable, independently verified data, and a method of turning that into an actual map for eithr a FE or RE in a way that confirms either one.
Who will take up this challenge (and yes I would like REers to have a go at this too)?
-
You are assuming, of course, that flights take the optimum route and are not sent on a wild goose chase by the conspiracy-controlled GPS system?
-
You are assuming, of course, that flights take the optimum route and are not sent on a wild goose chase by the conspiracy-controlled GPS system?
I don't see why they would be. Flight times didn't shoot up with the introduction of the civilian GPS, and there are other method pilots use to tell where they are anyway.
-
Civilian GPS isn't yet a reality - all the satellites are still controlled by the US military. The European system isn't yet operational, although once it is it would be much harder to argue that that is under the sway of the conspiracy.
Other methods pilots use to determine the correct flight path and location are prone to large errors, which is why they all use GPS.
-
Civilian GPS isn't yet a reality - all the satellites are still controlled by the US military. The European system isn't yet operational, although once it is it would be much harder to argue that that is under the sway of the conspiracy.
Other methods pilots use to determine the correct flight path and location are prone to large errors, which is why they all use GPS.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - I was referring to the ability for civilians, such as commercial aircraft, to make used of the signals produced by the GPS transmitters. The flight times of planes didn't sharply rise when they started using these signals, suggesting that they were not being taken on a far longer course.
And while pilots make use of GPS, it doesn't imply that it's the only thing that they can use to determine where they are. I imagine that a fair number of pilots, especially those who were not so trusting in new technology shortly after it started to be utilised, may have used methods to determine their course and position other than GPS.
-
You are assuming, of course, that flights take the optimum route and are not sent on a wild goose chase by the conspiracy-controlled GPS system?
No, quite the opposite. The flights are arriving consistently earlier than possible under FET. FE would require the breaking the sound barrier, which is not observed. RET better describes common, everyday observations, yet again.
-
Unless I'm mistaken most of the early flights were conducted using dead reckoning in the Northern 'hemisphere', where FET and RET don't deviate too greatly. Later flights also used dead reckoning and frequent stopovers to refuel, and again most were either over land (again where FET and RET don't disagree that greatly) or in the North.
Southern 'hemisphere' flights that crossed the oceans came later (although please correct me if I'm wrong on this point) and there aren't enough of them to conclusively prove that there are no viable FE solutions to the ocean sizes before GPS became widely used.
-
Oddly I know someone who did one of those round the world tours. He went from Macchu Picchu (that a pure guess so feel free to flame) to New Zealand. I asked he didn't remember hearing a sonic boom or indeed the plane looking like the SR-71 though he does drink on planes.
-
I'm willing to bet the plane he flew on was guided by a GPS system, so could have taken advantage of the layered jet streams in the atmolayer.
-
Do they not all go the same way, which is the other way. Wait..no.... ah ok.
-
Unless I'm mistaken most of the early flights were conducted using dead reckoning in the Northern 'hemisphere', where FET and RET don't deviate too greatly. Later flights also used dead reckoning and frequent stopovers to refuel, and again most were either over land (again where FET and RET don't disagree that greatly) or in the North.
Southern 'hemisphere' flights that crossed the oceans came later (although please correct me if I'm wrong on this point) and there aren't enough of them to conclusively prove that there are no viable FE solutions to the ocean sizes before GPS became widely used.
But the problem is that it takes a lot longer to travel somewhere in the Southern hemisphere in the FE model, so the GPS would be slowing the planes down in the Northern hemisphere in order to make the two hemisphere seem to match up, where people would be more likely to notice.
-
But the problem is that it takes a lot longer to travel somewhere in the Southern hemisphere in the FE model, so the GPS would be slowing the planes down in the Northern hemisphere in order to make the two hemisphere seem to match up, where people would be more likely to notice.
Unless there are high speed layered jet streams for the planes to take advantage of...
-
Unless there are high speed layered jet streams for the planes to take advantage of...
Or perhaps some kind of fundamental force that accelerates things in the Southern hemisphere, maybe a wormhole that takes planes across the ocean in a few hours, possibly an army of invisible hypersonic birds that push the craft around the planet.
It's all well and good saying what could be doing these things, but which one requires the fewest assumptions and unknown mechanisms? The Earth being round, or the Earth being flat with bi-directional jet streams that the GPS receivers manage to trick pilots into flying into?
-
Unless I'm mistaken most of the early flights were conducted using dead reckoning in the Northern 'hemisphere', where FET and RET don't deviate too greatly. Later flights also used dead reckoning and frequent stopovers to refuel, and again most were either over land (again where FET and RET don't disagree that greatly) or in the North.
Southern 'hemisphere' flights that crossed the oceans came later (although please correct me if I'm wrong on this point) and there aren't enough of them to conclusively prove that there are no viable FE solutions to the ocean sizes before GPS became widely used.
First and foremost, kudos on the style... You're the Man!
There's definite validity to your points. The SH (being ambiguous about what the H stands for -- hemidisc? hemisphere?) is less populated has less land mass and greater distances between its three populated continents. (Asia all but abuts North America in contrast.) Furthermore Great Circle routes don't take commercial traffic any where near the far south as the SH continents are rather distant from that area. Use Google Earth to look 'down' from the RE SP, and you'll be amazed how different the SP region is from the NP.
However, with commercial flights now regularly scheduled and measured between various cities and doing a little math, assuming that no one is breaking the sound barrier on a commercial flight, FE is falsified easily. There have been several convincing posts. I suggest SEARCH on Chile, South Africa, Perth, etc. If you want to do the 'armchair' experiment: use a travel site to see the on-time arrival statistics for various pairings of SH cities. Be sure to eliminate the Jet Stream effect by looking at the 'return' flights. Be sure to ignore Tom Bishop when he says that the flights aren't always on time. If the average flight time is less than FE can handle, FE is falsified.
Thanks again!
-
First and foremost, kudos on the style... You're the Man!
There's definite validity to your points. The SH (being ambiguous about what the H stands for -- hemidisc? hemisphere?) is less populated has less land mass and greater distances between its three populated continents. (Asia all but abuts North America in contrast.) Furthermore Great Circle routes don't take commercial traffic any where near the far south as the SH continents are rather distant from that area. Use Google Earth to look 'down' from the RE SP, and you'll be amazed how different the SP region is from the NP.
However, with commercial flights now regularly scheduled and measured between various cities and doing a little math, assuming that no one is breaking the sound barrier on a commercial flight, FE is falsified easily. There have been several convincing posts. I suggest SEARCH on Chile, South Africa, Perth, etc. If you want to do the 'armchair' experiment: use a travel site to see the on-time arrival statistics for various pairings of SH cities. Be sure to eliminate the Jet Stream effect by looking at the 'return' flights. Be sure to ignore Tom Bishop when he says that the flights aren't always on time. If the average flight time is less than FE can handle, FE is falsified.
Thanks again!
That's quite alright, it's always nice to get some appreciation for my efforts.
I'm currently idly working on a theory whereby a Coriolis-type force could allow for layered jet streams to exist in a graded manner in the atmosphere/layer, which would end up producing an infinite torque gradient at some distance above the surface (essentially a rotational 'event horizon' preventing space travel above a certain altitude, presumably linked to the UA mechanism). This is obviously not that easy, but the idea is there anyway.
Basically this would scale with distance from the centre of rotation (the North Pole) in such a way as to cancel out the increased distance... Geometrically it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that this would allow for a knowledgeable conspirator to make flights take as long or as short as they wished... perhaps a link to UFO's observed moving incredibly fast with no associated sonic boom? NASA would certainly have the funds to exploit this type of technology, and other space agencies may well have done the same. Perhaps the 'Space Race' was in fact a race to control the graded atmolayer?
-
First and foremost, kudos on the style... You're the Man!
There's definite validity to your points. The SH (being ambiguous about what the H stands for -- hemidisc? hemisphere?) is less populated has less land mass and greater distances between its three populated continents. (Asia all but abuts North America in contrast.) Furthermore Great Circle routes don't take commercial traffic any where near the far south as the SH continents are rather distant from that area. Use Google Earth to look 'down' from the RE SP, and you'll be amazed how different the SP region is from the NP.
However, with commercial flights now regularly scheduled and measured between various cities and doing a little math, assuming that no one is breaking the sound barrier on a commercial flight, FE is falsified easily. There have been several convincing posts. I suggest SEARCH on Chile, South Africa, Perth, etc. If you want to do the 'armchair' experiment: use a travel site to see the on-time arrival statistics for various pairings of SH cities. Be sure to eliminate the Jet Stream effect by looking at the 'return' flights. Be sure to ignore Tom Bishop when he says that the flights aren't always on time. If the average flight time is less than FE can handle, FE is falsified.
Thanks again!
That's quite alright, it's always nice to get some appreciation for my efforts.
I'm currently idly working on a theory whereby a Coriolis-type force could allow for layered jet streams to exist in a graded manner in the atmosphere/layer, which would end up producing an infinite torque gradient at some distance above the surface (essentially a rotational 'event horizon' preventing space travel above a certain altitude, presumably linked to the UA mechanism). This is obviously not that easy, but the idea is there anyway.
Basically this would scale with distance from the centre of rotation (the North Pole) in such a way as to cancel out the increased distance... Geometrically it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that this would allow for a knowledgeable conspirator to make flights take as long or as short as they wished...
So is every pilot on earth in on the conspiracy? Whoever would have thought it...
-
So is every pilot on earth in on the conspiracy? Whoever would have thought it...
lrn2readbeforeposting
-
Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?
Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.
When you actually have some data that proves the earth flat, please let us know.
Haha. You're going to be waiting for a LONG time!! They don't have ANY valid evidence WHATSOEVER. It's all just a dillusion :P.
-
Haha. You're going to be waiting for a LONG time!! They don't have ANY valid evidence WHATSOEVER. It's all just a dillusion :P.
-
But the problem is that it takes a lot longer to travel somewhere in the Southern hemisphere in the FE model, so the GPS would be slowing the planes down in the Northern hemisphere in order to make the two hemisphere seem to match up, where people would be more likely to notice.
Unless there are high speed layered jet streams for the planes to take advantage of...
Unless there are... if there are then they must be visually unobservable. Take that in account when you work on your layered yet stream theory.
-
LOL FE's argument to insufficient evidence is due to a lack of resources and funding.. So then that proves you don't in fact have any evidence as you admit you can't provide it because you don't have the means.. So then why believe in FE?
We're not the ones that need the evidence, you do.
That flat earth map, it's flawed in so many ways.. Flying from New Zealand to South America should take DAYS according to it when it took me only a few hours.. Oh and at least make yours a little more realistic.. 3D or some sh*t..
-
Unless there are... if there are then they must be visually unobservable. Take that in account when you work on your layered yet stream theory.
You can see the wind, can you?
-
Unless there are... if there are then they must be visually unobservable. Take that in account when you work on your layered yet stream theory.
You can see the wind, can you?
I can see effect of the wind. Or do you say that the yet stream canals are always clear and there are no clouds?
-
I can see effect of the wind. Or do you say that the yet stream canals are always clear and there are no clouds?
Having not performed an exhaustive study of high altitude wind in the Southern 'hemiplane' I can't be certain, but it's possible that clouds preferentially form in some layers rather than others.
-
What happened to that good thread showing the length of underwater internet cables, and corresponding data with latency/ping delays that was consistent with RE maps? Another thread that Tom Bishop and his motley crew just ignored?
-
What happened to that good thread showing the length of underwater internet cables, and corresponding data with latency/ping delays that was consistent with RE maps? Another thread that Tom Bishop and his motley crew just ignored?
I suspect the conspiracy deleted it.
-
i just read this thread and i think that it absolutely shows how fake the whole fe theory is....tom says tha he needs the complete flat earth map in order to explain how the flight times work in the fe model...come on people!!!according to the flight times displayed by various members it is completely impossible to explain how these times work on a flat earth model..
some members have already proven that by taking just 4 flight times in consideration it is impossible to create a valid fe map...imagine what is going to happen if someone takes all flight times in consideration... ::)furthermore tom said that creating a map needs lots of resources....well actually not...assuming that the flight times are correct and that the planes do not fly in circles tom would easily create a map using those times by connecting the flight destinations...this would be easy if the earth was flat...but since it is not this task is just impossible...
-
wikipedia quote: 'Flat Earth Society also does not have an answer for the discrepancies that arise in surface distances between a round Earth map and that of the flat Earth equivalent.'
this amused me.. perhaps a FE theorist would like to go in and correct this statement after giving a decent answer to this thread ;)
real earth distances still add up while flat earth distances dont come close, despite lots of silly responses about jet streams and conspiracies. im surprised people still bother to argue all the other points when this one is still up in the air.
-
LOL
It does make you wonder, when a map is a 2 dimensional representation of the ground, why the FE pseudoscientists have such a problem creating a 2 dimensional representation of their flat earth.
Flat earth, flat map. How difficult can it be?
-
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
So the FE thery is hipothetical only too.
-
There is no one FE theory LOL.
It's just a bunch of separate ideas based on "Well it looks flat so it must be flat". Non of the separate ideas join up into a coherent model which is why they are trying to see if they can convince themselves that "bendy light" is a possibility because they think they could explain everything with it. Well, apart from the Ice Wall/Infinite plain models.
-
I have another question for flat-earthers.
How does google earth take pictures of the earth and is able to do real time satellite images of streets all across the world.The satellite shows the world is spherical and it can be proven that this is real because you can zoom ii on your exact house.
-
I have another question for flat-earthers.
How does google earth take pictures of the earth and is able to do real time satellite images of streets all across the world.The satellite shows the world is spherical and it can be proven that this is real because you can zoom ii on your exact house.
If you have a question to ask, do so in Q&C. Discussions in D&D must stick to the topic at hand.
-
I have another question for flat-earthers.
How does google earth take pictures of the earth and is able to do real time satellite images of streets all across the world.The satellite shows the world is spherical and it can be proven that this is real because you can zoom ii on your exact house.
If you have a question to ask, do so in Q&C. Discussions in D&D must stick to the topic at hand.
No answers at all... Looking good.
-
what Tom is trying to say is he likes to debate.
-
still nothing?
-
This thread really makes me laugh...
Last time I checked, it was the FEers who needed to prove the Earth was flat, not the REers who needed to prove the Earth was round...theirs is the outlandish claim, theirs is the thinking that goes contrary to orthodoxy, thus theirs is the hypothesis that needs proving...and this "the Bishop" character (who seems to have acquired legendary internet FE status!) posts flippant remarks along the lines that it's REers who are subject to the burden of proof... :D
Respect... :)
-
Since when is your lack of evidence my problem? ???
You kind of have to know what you're trying to disprove if you're making an augment against something. If you don't know, then you don't have much of an argument.
If you're making a claim the burden of proof is on you and no other. Several of you RE'rs have made claims of a certain configuration of the continents in this thread. The burden is on you to prove it. There's nothing for me to prove because I haven't made any claims.
1. No you don't...if you're trying to prove SOMETHING, then when you prove it you automatically disprove all competing theories, regardless of whether you're completely au fait with them or not...
2. You've made quite a big claim, namely "the Earth is flat"...but I've yet to see you offer one shred of proof, raw data, or anything approaching evidence...still, takes all sorts to make up a Round Earth... ;)
-
They know this is where their theory falls to pieces, so they avoid it as much as possible.
-
They know this is where their theory falls to pieces, so they avoid it as much as possible.
I've seen pilot maps. They are flat. Yes, it is a huge conspiracy. Why do you think it's easier to drive a car than it is to fly a plane? Pilot training takes years and you cannot go intercontinental until you are fully indoctrinated. Sadly, by this time, you have invested so much time and money into being a pilot that you have no choice but to go along with the conspiracy. Don't endanger your career for us, we understand.
-
Pilots can't exactly fly around with globes can they.
Bit hard to plot points.
-
They know this is where their theory falls to pieces, so they avoid it as much as possible.
I've seen pilot maps. They are flat. Yes, it is a huge conspiracy. Why do you think it's easier to drive a car than it is to fly a plane? Pilot training takes years and you cannot go intercontinental until you are fully indoctrinated. Sadly, by this time, you have invested so much time and money into being a pilot that you have no choice but to go along with the conspiracy. Don't endanger your career for us, we understand.
HA.
Aeronautical charts are distorted due to their projections. They do not represent reality and adjustments are made accordingly when planning flights because the earth is round and these charts cannot be create without errors on a 2d surface. Pilots can fly any were they want provided they have the correct aircraft and type rating to do it and I see no reason why someone who has spent lots of money should give in to a conspiracy. All of you reasoning is flawed.
Keep in mind that I am training to be a pilot. This is sorta my forte.
-
Keep in mind that I am training to be a pilot. This is sorta my forte.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/62949864.html
How to win an arguement on CL
2) CLAIM YOU WORK IN WHATEVER FIELD YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT.
I'm a stealth jet fighter pilot for a secret organization that forbids me to mention that I work there. Also the earth is flat.
-
Keep in mind that I am training to be a pilot. This is sorta my forte.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/62949864.html
How to win an arguement on CL
2) CLAIM YOU WORK IN WHATEVER FIELD YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT.
I'm a stealth jet fighter pilot for a secret organization that forbids me to mention that I work there. Also the earth is flat.
That's fine. I don't care if you don't believe me. I know the truth and that truth is that I'm training to be a pilot. It isn't far fetched and I can easily provide proof if you want. But the point still stands.
-
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
because you can't prove it
-
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
because you can't prove it
Mapping every square mile of the earth's surface is not an easy task.
In all the years of cartography, there are still serious errors. Coastlines which don't match up. Islands on maps which don't exist. Cartography is a very primitive art, inaccurate to this very day. Much of it is guesswork.
Indeed, for over three hundred years California was depicted in maps as an island off the coast of the United States. Generations of supposedly intelligent men lived and died believing that they were living on an island.
If you're interested in the subject, and the difficulty of cartography, there's a good book on the subject called "How to Lie with Maps" by Mark Monmonier.
-
In all the years of cartography, there are still serious errors. Coastlines which don't match up. Islands on maps which don't exist. Cartography is a very primitive art, inaccurate to this very day. Much of it is guesswork.
Example please? (other than California)
-
The FE maps are hypothetical only.
because you can't prove it
Mapping every square mile of the earth's surface is not an easy task.
In all the years of cartography, there are still serious errors. Coastlines which don't match up. Islands on maps which don't exist. Cartography is a very primitive art, inaccurate to this very day. Much of it is guesswork.
Indeed, for over three hundred years California was depicted in maps as an island off the coast of the United States. Generations of supposedly intelligent men lived and died believing that they were living on an island.
If you're interested in the subject, and the difficulty of cartography, there's a good book on the subject called "How to Lie with Maps" by Mark Monmonier.
I swear I've read this exact statement somewhere else. Perhaps on here, but I know I've read it.
-
Mapping every square mile of the earth's surface is not an easy task.
Who said anything about mapping every square mile of the earth's surface? FE'ers aren't even willing to measure the distance between major cities in the southern hemiplane.
-
In all the years of cartography, there are still serious errors. Coastlines which don't match up. Islands on maps which don't exist. Cartography is a very primitive art, inaccurate to this very day. Much of it is guesswork.
Example please? (other than California)
Frisland, Korea depicted as an island, etc. etc.
-
Are there any examples of such anomalies on modern RET maps or have they all been cleaned up in the last 100 years or so?
-
Are there any examples of such anomalies on modern RET maps or have they all been cleaned up in the last 100 years or so?
The only errors in modern maps is when the satellite image stitching decides to repeat itself slightly.
-
Hi
I've been flying around the world for about 20 years now for various business trips. I've flown from Europe to Australia along one side of the planet (stopping along the way) and I've flown back the other side of the planet (stopping along the way)
For example it takes roughtly 24 hours to fly from England to Australia, but I've flown from Australia to South America in half this time.
By your flat earth theory and maps, this journey should in fact take twice as long, not half as long. Please explain how this is possible.
In fact you dont need to take my word for it, you can easily map out the earth as a globe using airline flight times. If there is some conspiracy about the earth being a sphere, ALL the world airline compaines are in on it, and there are a lot of airoplanes flying round in circles to perpetuate the lie.
Any thoughts?
-
bump
-
bump
^No, you can't do that in the upper fora. Behave. >:(
-
bump
^No, you can't do that in the upper fora. Behave. >:(
sorry, insanely bored so decided to be a jerk ;)
-
bump
Please don't bump a thread unless you have something to add to the discussion.