The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: brit on January 14, 2007, 06:54:07 AM
-
Hi all, greetings from an open-minded RE-er.
My question is similar to one on the FAQ, but the FAQ didn't provide me with an acceptable answer so here goes...
A direct 747 flight from Santiago, Chile to Auckland, New Zealand takes about 11 and 1/2 hours. Hopefully we can all agree on that being a fact. In round earth theory this tallies well with a cruising speed of around 600mph. However, judging by the flat earth maps that are shown on this site, the distance between these cities looks to be around 18000 miles - requiring a cruising speed of around 1600mph - faster than Concorde.
What is the FE stance on this? Are standard commercial 747s capable of this speed? If so - since their path crosses a lot of land - how come no one ever hears the sonic boom? Would it be necessary in FE theory to then deny either the existance of sonic booms and/or speed of sound?
Rational explanations preferred.
Thanks for your time.
-
Its clearly a conspiracy.... you actually don't get on the plane. The big bad government drug EVERYBODY and put them in a simulation... and when you get out, they put you in this computer program (similar to the matrix) and you think you are on holiday!!!!
ZOMGX0RZ!
:shock:
Thats the kind of answer you are gonna get dude... Round Earther speaking here.
-
That's because these guys use azimuthal projections as factual representation.
As a matter of fact, these have the same biases as map projections do.
This means that the "flat earth', is invalid.
-
I appreciate the posts guys, but I would like to hear a FE response before we start a flame.
FE-ers: anyone out there?
-
I appreciate the posts guys, but I would like to hear a FE response before we start a flame.
FE-ers: anyone out there?
Fat chance. I posted the same thing a long time ago, and was barely even acknowledged.
-
In FE distances are relative to distances in RE.
-
I am not really sure what you mean by that. My question does not rely on any reference to round earth. I'll try and make it more concrete so it only needs a yes/no answer:
1. You MUST concede that in FE the distance involved is 18000 miles.
2. You MUST concede that it is possible to fly the distance in 11.5hrs.
3. Following from this, using speed=dist/time (I really hope you don't deny that), you MUST concede that the flight speed reaches in excess of 1600mph.
Yes or no?
-
The distance would not be "about 1,800 miles," but exactly the same as the distance in RE.
Remember, there is no scale in the FE map projections.
-
1. From the FAQ:
Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles
2. If you are claiming the distance on the FE map from Chile to NZ/Aus is 6300 miles (which is about what it is in RE) then is everything else on that direct path compressed too? Is continental America now 1/3 of the distance too?
-
No. America is exactly the same size as it is in RE.
Like many map projections, azimuthal projections are used for visualization, not to chart accurate distances.
-
In that case, could you provide a scaled map that demonstrates both your assertions:
1. That the earth is on a two-dimensional disc.
2. That 2 given cities (or even arbitrary points) on this map can be measured to be equal to the distance between these 2 places on a round earth globe.
If the world is flat, this should be easy to do.
EDIT:
On round earth, distance from southernmost tip of South America to mid-Alaska (ie length of continental America) is about 9000 miles. You claim that on flat earth this distance is the same. On FE this line forms part of the longer path between Chile and NZ, a distance you've already claimed is about 6000 miles. In other words, IRRELEVENT of any scale or projections, you are claiming the following:
Distance A: <-------------------------------------------------->
Distance B: <--------------------------->
and B > A. I hope you can see how this is impossible.[/b]
-
Tom, here's a picture to illustrate the point:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v511/timewarp946785/untitled-1.png)
The time is the same in both cases. Therefore, the speed must be much higher, in order to get to the same place at the same time. If this were the case, however, the speeds required would cause a sonic boom, that many people would hear. There is no such case of this ever happening.
To get from Santiago, Chile, to Auckland, New Zealand in 11 hours is impossible on a flat earth.
-
(http://www.kevthornberry.f2s.com/fe.jpg)
This was my point in response to your explanation tom. To quote you:
1. America is exactly the same size as it is in RE.
In RE we take this to be 9000 miles
2. (referring to distance between Chile and NZ) The distance would not be "about 1,800 miles,"(sic) but exactly the same as the distance in RE.
In RE we take this to be 6300 miles.
Now no amount of skewing of the above map can account for what you are claiming.
-
The above map does not preserve distances between continents. Also, planes do not travel in that fashion.
The fallacy of your arguments is neglecting the curvature of the earth in the RE model. On a globe, you are also curving as you travel, curving around the globe. But you do not see this difference because in your mind you are traveling in a straight line on a 2D globe.
The additional distance you are curving around the globe in RE is directly proportional to the amount of perceptual distance apparent in the FE model. Distances stay the same in both models, but on a computer screen comparisons look different because the RE globe is projected onto a 2D environment.
-
I'll ask again... can you show me a top-down map of FE that corroborates the assertions you've made.
-
The above map does not preserve distances between continents.
That's your first flaw. You said:
America is exactly the same size as it is in RE.
One cannot be the other, Tom. By the first quote, you have rendered your original statement false, and you have just been made a liar.
-
I'll ask again... can you show me a top-down map of FE that corroborates the assertions you've made.
Firstly, I am not a cartographer.
Secondly, if I were to charter another FE map it would be pointless because you will immediately take my map and compare distances to a two dimensional globe. You will then repost the maps, showing that the distance in FE is clearly longer than the distance in RE.
The distances on the FE map will always seem perceptually longer because you are not comprehending the curvature of the earth in the RE model. This additional curvature causes distances on the FE map to seem perceptually longer.
-
No Tom. Stop ignoring the facts.
I called you a liar. Here's why:
America is exactly the same size as it is in RE.
then you said:
The above map does not preserve distances between continents.
By your second statement, you have nullified you're first one, because the distance between coasts on an FE map would not equal the distance on an RE map.
So make up your mind Tom, and stick to it. You're giving a bad name to the FE model.
-
To get from Santiago, Chile, to Auckland, New Zealand in 11 hours is impossible on a flat earth.
I'm guessing you found this from my earlier post here (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7663&highlight=distance+continents). You are partially right, but assuming one takes the shortest distance on the FE the distances come out much shorter.
If you wanted to have some fun you should calculate the length of a geodesic between the two cities projected on a flat earth.
I'll give you a couple equations to use even.
Update: I will not give you equations on second thought. The equation of the geodesic line is a 2nd-order diff-eq with 9 terms. I don't care that much, and I doubt you do either.
-
By the first quote, you have rendered your original statement false, and you have just been made a liar.
America is the same size in both models.
I do not claim any particular map in FE to be accurate representations of the flat earth. The maps you are looking at are just rough visual aids, distances are only accurate between a few points.
-
You did it again.
You claim that America is the same size, the same size, the same size, THE SAME GOD DAMN SIZE and then you go and say that distances are not preserved in an FE map.
Well, if they aren't preserved, then they aren't the same size, now are they?
-
America is almost exactly the same size in FE, geometrically. But distances are not preserved in that particular FE map. What about that does your small mind not understand?
The FE model is a theory held together with scientific proofs, not any one specific map rendition.
-
Ok...
Tom, ignoring any distances for now, would you say that on the FE disc you can roughly draw a straight line across the diameter that goes through both Chile and New Zealand? And by FE disc I don't mean the picture above, I just mean some top-down view of FE.
-
Here's an article on map projection and distance preservation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection
Your FE map was stated by you not to preserve any distances.
Yet you claim that everything would be the same size by stating America would be the same size on both. Well, logically, that means you contradicted yourself, because if distances are not preserved, then it would not be the same size on both maps.
What don't you seem to understand about that?
America is almost exactly the same size in FE, geometrically.
First it was exactly, now it's almost exactly? Make up your damn mind Tom. Please, for the sake of the FE defense, make it up.
-
Ok...
Tom, ignoring any distances for now, would you say that on the FE disc you can roughly draw a straight line across the diameter that goes through both Chile and New Zealand? And by FE disc I don't mean the picture above, I just mean some top-down view of FE.
Yes, you can. A route like that would take you across the flat earth.
Here's an article on map projection and distance preservation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection
Your FE map was stated by you not to preserve any distances.
Yet you claim that everything would be the same size by stating America would be the same size on both. Well, logically, that means you contradicted yourself, because if distances are not preserved, then it would not be the same size on both maps.
What don't you seem to understand about that?
Size as in geometry, not distance. Are you really that dense? If I meant distance I would have said distance.
-
Ok...
Tom, ignoring any distances for now, would you say that on the FE disc you can roughly draw a straight line across the diameter that goes through both Chile and New Zealand? And by FE disc I don't mean the picture above, I just mean some top-down view of FE.
Yes, you can. A route like that would take you across the flat earth.
He is correct, unfortunately.
-
Ok. So we can break that diameter up into 3 sections:
A: Distance from ice wall to Chile.
B: Distance from Chile to New Zealand.
C: Distance from New Zealand to opposite ice wall.
And A+B+C=24000 miles. Correct?
-
Ok. So we can break that diameter up into 3 sections:
A: Distance from ice wall to Chile.
B: Distance from Chile to New Zealand.
C: Distance from New Zealand to opposite ice wall.
And A+B+C=24000 miles. Correct?
Where are you getting these figures from?
-
You're so retarded Tom. You truly have no experience in even using a map, it's ever apparent now.
And you can't make such claims about distances and the size of something. They directly correlate with each other, numbnuts.
-
Ok. Start from the ice wall nearest Chile. Using ratios (ie not absolute distances) can you make an estimation as to the distance between the ice wall and Chile. Note I have not asked for an accurate distance, just a rough estimate, eg 1/10, as in "the distance from the ice wall to Chile is about 1/10 of the whole distance across".
-
The 24000 miles diameter is quoted in the FAQ. Did you just edit your reply?
-
Ok. Start from the ice wall nearest Chile. Using ratios (ie not absolute distances) can you make an estimation as to the distance between the ice wall and Chile. Note I have not asked for an accurate distance, just a rough estimate, eg 1/10, as in "the distance from the ice wall to Chile is about 1/10 of the whole distance across".
Yes, I would say 1/10 is a rough approximation.
-
OK. And can you make a similar estimation as to the distance between NZ and the far ice wall. Again, I'd go for 1/10. Agreed?
-
Agreed.
-
Ok. It's worth saying at this point that none of this need be related to RE distances in any way, we are just looking at FE.
So if the distance from near ice wall to Chile is 1/10 total distance, and distance from NZ to far ice wall is also 1/10, then the remaining distance is 4/5. Agreed?
-
Agreed.
-
Ok. So we've established that on FE, a straight line between Chile and NZ is about 4/5 of the total diameter, and 4/5 of 24900 is 19920 miles. Agreed?
-
Above, on the first post of this page, you estimated the diameter as 24,000 miles. You are changing your numbers around.
-
Well, okay, can we agree that 4/5s of 24000 is, um, whatever someone not too lazy to pull a calculator out and test it is?
-
My apologies - I have since rechecked the FAQ and the exact number there is 24900. But do you agree with my previous statement?
-
Above, on the first post of this page, you estimated the diameter as 24,000 miles. You are changing your numbers around.
Pot calling the kettle black...
-
My apologies - I have since rechecked the FAQ and the exact number there is 24900. But do you agree with my previous statement?
You are forgiven.
Yes, I can agree on a rough estimated distance of 19,920 miles.
-
So just to be clear, from everything we've agreed on in these last few posts: on FE, the straight-line distance between Chile and NZ is, give or take, approximately 19000 miles. Agreed?
-
Agreed, that might be a rough estimate.
-
Well, this sort of brings me back to my original question: on FE, to travel the shortest possible distance between Chile and NZ in 11.5hrs requires an average speed of about 1650 mph. How is this possible in a 747 with average cruising speed 600mph?
And yes I realise these figures are slightly different this time round - the original was based on my estimation of 18000 miles, these are based on your estimation of 19000.
Also, please note we have STILL not made any reference to round earth.
To reiterate: on FE, how can you travel 19000 miles in 11.5hrs?
-
Well, this sort of brings me back to my original question: on FE, to travel the shortest possible distance between Chile and NZ in 11.5hrs requires an average speed of about 1650 mph. How is this possible in a 747 with average cruising speed 600mph?
And yes I realise these figures are slightly different this time round - the original was based on my estimation of 18000 miles, these are based on your estimation of 19000.
Also, please note we have STILL not made any reference to round earth.
To reiterate: on FE, how can you travel 19000 miles in 11.5hrs?
Planes don't travel a direct route between Chile to New Zealand. In reality they make a lot of little hops to major destinations picking up and dropping off passengers.
-
Well, this sort of brings me back to my original question: on FE, to travel the shortest possible distance between Chile and NZ in 11.5hrs requires an average speed of about 1650 mph. How is this possible in a 747 with average cruising speed 600mph?
And yes I realise these figures are slightly different this time round - the original was based on my estimation of 18000 miles, these are based on your estimation of 19000.
Also, please note we have STILL not made any reference to round earth.
To reiterate: on FE, how can you travel 19000 miles in 11.5hrs?
Planes don't travel a direct route between Chile to New Zealand. In reality they make a lot of little hops around the world picking up and dropping off passengers.
Actually there is a single flight from Auckland to Santiago. It took me a damn long time to find one with no other stops, but I found it. I think it was on www.LAN.com, if you want to find it again.
-
Enough techincalities. He's asking if a 747 did not make any stops, then how would it possible?
-
So just to be clear, from everything we've agreed on in these last few posts: on FE, the straight-line distance between Chile and NZ is, give or take, approximately 19000 miles. Agreed?
that is not even close; you are waaay too high. It's more like 4500 Km. I did the exact calculation myself from Auckland to Santiago using their specific latitudes and longitudes.
Here is my post: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7663&sid=7ebcdc3b67913e75c7206f358a51cde7
-
There is a daily DIRECT Qantas service that takes 11 hours 20 minutes.
Again Tom, I ask you to answer my question. How can a 747 achive 1650mph?
-
edit: retracted
-
There is a daily DIRECT Qantas service that takes 11 hours 20 minutes.
Again Tom, I ask you to answer my question. How can a 747 achive 1650mph?
You're going to have to read my post, Brit. I did the exact same calculation except with no estimates. you are way off, my friend.
-
eviltoothpaste your calculations are based on a diameter of 12800km, whereas it clearly states on the FAQ that the diameter is 24900 miles. Are you suggesting the FAQ is wrong?
-
eviltoothpaste your calculations are based on a diameter of 12800km, whereas it clearly states on the FAQ that the diameter is 24900 miles. Are you suggesting the FAQ is wrong?
In his post he estimates the diameter of the equator at 12,800km.
-
eviltoothpaste your calculations are based on a diameter of 12800km, whereas it clearly states on the FAQ that the diameter is 24900 miles. Are you suggesting the FAQ is wrong?
interesting. That's a really big difference. What did I do?
ahhh, I looked it up on the "government controlled" internet. big mistake, my apologies.
-
My mistake Tom, but you have previously agreed that the 19000 figure was fairly accurate.
eviltoothpaste, if you can calculate FE distances between any 2 earth points to absolute accuracy (and your post implies that you claim you can) then surely you can present me with an accurate top-down map of FE?
-
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not there, but could you tell me which non-government-controlled source you obtained the latitudes and logitudes from?
-
I wonder where they got that number for the diameter? They must have meant Km.
-
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/RicardoMartinez.shtml
That's where I got my source for my calculations. I think the FAQ meant to say Km instead of miles, because the generally accepted diameter of the equator fits pretty damn close in that case.
We're going to have to take this up with the big-wigs of FET.
-
edit: retracted
-
eviltoothpaste, if you can calculate FE distances between any 2 earth points to absolute accuracy (and your post implies that you claim you can) then surely you can present me with an accurate top-down map of FE?
absolutely not! There is a big difference between calculating the distance between two points on a plane and generating an image of something as complex as that. It's not even the same general area of knowledge. Don't get me wrong, Brit, I think the FE is ridiculous too. I'm just trying to be scientific (to the best of my ability, which is not vast) about my arguments.
-
Ok, from the map on the post you referenced (which I must say bears little resemblance to the previous map), can you estimate the distance between Capetown, South Africa and Sydney, Australia?
-
So just to be clear, from everything we've agreed on in these last few posts: on FE, the straight-line distance between Chile and NZ is, give or take, approximately 19000 miles. Agreed?
that is not even close; you are waaay too high. It's more like 4500 Km. I did the exact calculation myself from Auckland to Santiago using their specific latitudes and longitudes.
Here is my post: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7663&sid=7ebcdc3b67913e75c7206f358a51cde7
Wow. Good job, except that you got it all wrong.
Your first mistake? You used the diameter of the spherical earth, for calculations involving the surface of the earth.
Your second mistake? You used the same radius in both equations. For the surface area of the round earth, you are using a completely different radius than you are for the spherical earth.
Your third mistake? When calcualting the surface area of the earth, you used the diameter, instead of the radius.
Should I continue?
Nah, I don't even want to bother. Here is how to do it the right way:
Surface area of RE=4*pi*(6,378.1 km)^2= 511,185,932.523 m^2
Surface area of FE=pi*(40,076/2)^2= 1,261,416,818.729 m^2
I will convert from polar coordinates to cartesian coordinates, then just use the distance formula.
Santiago:
theta = -70.75
length from north pole = 123.47 degrees * 111.32 km (distance between one degree of latitude) = 13,744.95 km
x = length*cos(theta) = 4,531.58
y = length*sin(theta) = -12,976.46
Auckland:
theta = 174.8
length = 14,123.45
x = -14,065.32
y = 1,280.04
Distance between two points:
sqrt((x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2) = 23,432.72 km
(This is all on the flat earth model)
Speed = distance / time
Speed = 23,432.72 / 11.33
Speed = 2,067.59 km/h
In closing;
You fail. The numbers you were criticizing for being too big were, in fact, too small.
-
Will continue tomorrow - need to go to bed :)
BTW Tom, are you RE or FE?
EDIT: nice one, just saw the revised calculations. Was planning to have a look at them tomorrow but you saved me the trouble.
-
well crap!
-
So then... that's it? There is no such thing as a flat earth, as that would require flights over most of the populated earth, and at the same time, creating a sonic boom. No one has heard such a sound. Now it is mathematically proven that FE can't exist.
:D
-
I refuse to let this one go. Someone respond to this point, or concede.
-
Response: I concede.
Oh wait... I'm an RE. Never mind. :wink:
-
So then... that's it? There is no such thing as a flat earth, as that would require flights over most of the populated earth, and at the same time, creating a sonic boom. No one has heard such a sound. Now it is mathematically proven that FE can't exist. :D
I would reject the notion that no one has heard a sonic boom. The Concorde and many air-force jets are obvious examples of planes that do create a sonic boom. In fact Israel uses sonic booms to as a weapon of war against the Palestinians. <source> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom)
I also think that if you entertain the notion that RE theory is a conspiracy then given it's acceptance across the world, it's clear that the conspirators have infiltrated every level of science and government and you'd have to seriously question science and technological teachings that you're basing your so called mathematical proof on.
-
There is a daily DIRECT Qantas service that takes 11 hours 20 minutes.
Again Tom, I ask you to answer my question. How can a 747 achive 1650mph?
A 747 cannot travel at that speed.
-
Of course they cannot.
That is not the reason.
Weather and such can be factors, not speed. They also base arrival times at each stop by speed and take into account the possible weather at that time.
Commercial jets usually fly at a speed of 600 MPH. There is a flight that makes non-stop flights for the location used in the example.
Now answer the proposed question in the proper manner without deriving from the topic, picking an an inane, insignificant piece of information which does not matter (such as spelling, wording, etc), else concede. I hope that is terribly clear for you Tom.
19,000 Miles / 11.5 Hours = ~1,652MPH
We know that commercial planes fly at 600MPH. so 19,000/600=31.6 Hours.
Explain.
-
If a plane traveled across the diameter of the earth, across the north pole, it would take around 31.6 hours. I can agree to that.
But Chile wouldn't be directly opposite of New Zealand on a flat earth map. The two locations would be much closer.
Directly opposite from Chile would be the Indian Ocean.
-
If you force the constraint that distances between all points on your Flat-Earth map are equivalent to a Round-Earth map, then the result is that you change the topology of the Flat-Earth map into a sphere.
Consider this: The length of the 40th parallel is equivalent to the length of the 140th parallel on a round-Earth map. On the flat-Earth map, the lines corresponding to the 40th and 140th parallels are, in fact, circles. By your contention that the lengths are the same, it would imply that the circumference of circles of different diameters are the same length. What sort of geometry does your Flat-Earth map use that makes this possible?
-
CodeMercenary, have you ever flown around the world on the 140th parallel? Has anyone?
The truth is that very few "around the world" trips have taken place. And the ones that have were taken in the Northern Hemisphere or at the equator.
Most globular measurements were taken in the Northern Hemisphere on such trips, and just reversed and applied to the Southern Hemisphere.
-
The 140th parallel, or the 50th south parallel, corresponds to a flight from Chile to New Zealand.
So yeah, there are people who have flown from Chile to New Zealand. The flight time is 11 1/2 hours.
-
Yes, but my assertion is that traveling the opposite, or "long" way, it would take in excess of 21 hours. Longer than commonly thought. No one ever goes the long way, so no one will ever know for sure.
Only a small section of the 140'th has been measured. That section is between Chile and New Zealand.
-
It doesn't matter how small the distance is. It only matters how accurately the distance is measured. If that distance is ANYTHING except the distance predicted by the arc in the flat Earth model, then the flat Earth model is wrong.
The flat-Earth model predicts a straight-line distance that is so much longer than the actual distance that, for an airplane to reach its destination in the time it actually takes, it would have to travel faster than the speed of sound. Not only are airplanes not structurally capable of withstanding the forces associated with breaking the sound barrier, but the actual action of breaking it would be audible by all of the passengers on board.
-
Certain variables such as the 140th parallel would be different in the FE model, of course. But distances between known routes in RE, such as Chile and New Zealand, stay the same.
One thing many people are missing here is that you are curving on the RE globe too, adding additional distance to your travel. You cannot just paint a straight line on the FE and RE map and compare the two.
The additional distance you are curving around the globe in RE is directly proportional to the amount of increased perceptual distance apparent in the FE model. Distances between known routes stay the same in both models, but on a computer screen comparisons look different because the RE globe is projected onto a 2D environment, inherently warped with whatever map projection you use.
-
No, no. It's nothing like relative distances, or curving around the globe, or whatever.
Please, listen to what I'm saying. The straight-line distance between ANY two points on the 140th parallel in the flat-earth model is LONGER THAN the geodesic distance between these two points on a round-earth model, UNLESS your map exists in non-Euclidan space. In fact, the distances between any two pairs of analogous points in the Flat Earth and Round Earth model that don't lie on the Equator will *always* be different.
Here's an experiment you should conduct. Measure the distance around the South Pole at the 89th south parallel. Then measure the corresponding distance on the Flat Earth model. You'll see the distances are radically different.
-
No, actually, you are curving around the globe in RE. You never go in a straight line on a globe. The only way to go straight would be to tunnel through the earth. That difference in vertical distance is exactly proportional to the added horizontal distance on a FE map.
In fact, an apparent "straight line" on a globe would look curved on a FE map.
As for the 89th South around Antarctica, it is pretty obvious that they would be different between models.
-
It doesn't matter if it's a global curve. Anything south of the equator gets stretched out as you head further south. The "straight but curved" lines on the FE map are longer as you head south. That's why the 40th parallel on the FE model looks a LOT longer on all the FE maps given than it does on an RE model. And if plane pilots are crazy, they know the distances, and they know the times, as well as the rate of travel. They do the proper math, and they get the distance. Apply it to an FE map. Use the rate, and time, then plot the location where they would land on the FE map. I gauruntee it will always be short of the destination.
-
Tom:
Look at what I'm saying. Read it carefully, because I'm sure you're not understanding.
The geodesic of the 60th south parallel--which is curved because it's a geodesic--is SHORTER than the analogous (curved) path on the flat-Earth map. Got that? Shorter.
The 89th south parallel's total (curved) length is shorter than the analogous path on the flat Earth map. Obviously, you can tell that this is the case because the 89th south parallel is basically a short ring around the south pole. The 88th south parallel is shorter for the same reason. So is the 87th south parallel. So are ALL south parallels--including the 50th south parallel, which goes from Chile to New Zealand. This is a result of the way you have constructed your map to represent the North pole as being the center of a planar Earth.
-
Bump.
I want answers.
-
Look, there is no point in arguing any other topic, if you FE'ers have no response to this point, then that is it. It is proof the world is round.
Seriously, there are so many other topics to play the devil's advocate with, why pick this one?
-
Someone? Come on, was that all it took to prove the world was round?
-
Someone? Come on, was that all it took to prove the world was round?
Besides proving my terrible math wrong, there really isn't anyone in here that believe in a flat Earth.
sorry.
-
Someone? Come on, was that all it took to prove the world was round?
Besides proving my terrible math wrong, there really isn't anyone in here that believe in a flat Earth.
sorry.
Yeah, I know most people here just play the devil's advocate. So then this whole forum really isn't about the shape of the Earth at all, it's really just a place to practice debating.
-
Someone? Come on, was that all it took to prove the world was round?
Besides proving my terrible math wrong, there really isn't anyone in here that believe in a flat Earth.
sorry.
Yeah, I know most people here just play the devil's advocate. So then this whole forum really isn't about the shape of the Earth at all, it's really just a place to practice debating.
Pretty much. You should check out the "True Believers" forum. Freaky people (sorry if you do read this, but you're freaky).
-
FE has been proved wrong on this site dozens of times, they just never concede and admit to this being simply an academic exercise, a challenge to argue Devil's Advocate.
The Sun and Moon seem to be the things that trip them up the most. Your eclipses and solstices, for example.
-
I was content to let this thread die, but there still seem to be believers on this forum. I want an answer from them, or an admission.
-
BUMB
cmon boys
-
I want an answer from them, or an admission.
I admit that you don't realise you have been fooled and misguided by lies taught in schools pushed by the conspiracy. I admit that the earth is flat and that anyone who says otherwise is clearly delusion. I admit that I am always right... especially when I'm wrong. Finally, I admit to stealing a chocolate bar from the school canteen when I was younger.
Was that what you were after?
-
I want an answer from them, or an admission.
I admit that you don't realise you have been fooled and misguided by lies taught in schools pushed by the conspiracy. I admit that the earth is flat and that anyone who says otherwise is clearly delusion. I admit that I am always right... especially when I'm wrong. Finally, I admit to stealing a chocolate bar from the school canteen when I was younger.
Was that what you were after?
So now you call math a lie? Good job. :roll:
-
So now you call math a lie? Good job. :roll:
Mathematics were invented to support the conspiracy. So was history, science and the English language.
-
So now you call math a lie? Good job. :roll:
Mathematics were invented to support the conspiracy. So was history, science and the English language.
And lo and behold, you are supporting the conspiracy.
If you were serious about that, I really do pity you.
-
Mathematics were invented to support the conspiracy. So was history, science and the English language.
So math, history, science and the English language all weren't around back when people still believed that the Earth was flat?
-
Mathematics were invented to support the conspiracy. So was history, science and the English language.
So math, history, science and the English language all weren't around back when people still believed that the Earth was flat?
well mathematics and science first helped sway people that it was round, so that is the thinking.
-
Mathematics were invented to support the conspiracy. So was history, science and the English language.
So math, history, science and the English language all weren't around back when people still believed that the Earth was flat?
well mathematics and science first helped sway people that it was round, so that is the thinking.
damn facts!
-
So math, history, science and the English language all weren't around back when people still believed that the Earth was flat?
Actually, no they didn't. At least not in the way that they do now.
But I was joking when I said that.
-
So math, history, science and the English language all weren't around back when people still believed that the Earth was flat?
Actually, no they didn't. At least not in the way that they do now.
But I was joking when I said that.
That's a relief. It's hard to tell on these forums.
-
i've brought up things like this before and they never answer. this can be seen as an admission that they don't actually know and that their model cannot explain it. they refuse to comment in any way to try and save face by making it seem like they just haven't come across the thread yet. with that done, they go downstairs and grope some chained-up abducted 4-year-old boys.
-
...this can be seen as an admission that they don't actually know...
Or you can see it for what it really is. They are ignoring you because you are a troll.
-
...this can be seen as an admission that they don't actually know...
Or you can see it for what it really is. They are ignoring you because you are a troll.
i never used to be. i came here first actually wanting to find some stuff out, se why people think this sort of stuff. then when it became clear that they just ignore everything scientific you post then i just got bored and started trolling/spamming. they ignored me before that.
-
Then why do you come back?
-
He seeks love and acceptance :twisted:
-
Go to hell Ezkerraldean.
I have cancer and I don't know what would disgust me more... the thought that you actually believe any of your conspiracy crap or if you think it's funny.
-
Go to hell Ezkerraldean.
I have cancer and I don't know what would disgust me more... the thought that you actually believe any of your conspiracy crap or if you think it's funny.
I don't see how your cancer is relevant to the rest of your statement. :?
-
Go to hell Ezkerraldean.
I have cancer and I don't know what would disgust me more... the thought that you actually believe any of your conspiracy crap or if you think it's funny.
I don't see how your cancer is relevant to the rest of your statement. :?
Ezkerraldean has posted numerous times that cancer doesn't exist, as a way of mocking FE. It was stupid the first time he did it, and it still is.
-
BUMB
Lysdexic much?