The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 21, 2015, 10:24:10 AM

Title: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 21, 2015, 10:24:10 AM
I decided to do a little race. I already made a thread asking flat earthers to list there top ten reasons, now I'm asking for round (globe) earthers to give their top ten proofs. Who can give their reasons first in one post. I think I know who's going to win.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 11:46:32 AM
I'll copy and paste mine from the previous thread.

1. Objects going past the horizon disappear from the bottom up. They don't shrink because they are getting farther away, they are going under the horizon line.
2. The moon and sun set under the horizon. If the Earth were a flat disc, this would mean that they are going underneath the disc.
3. You can change when sunrise and sunset occur simply by changing your altitude. Go to Dubai, watch the sunset, take an elevator to the top of Burj Khalifa, and watch the sunset again.
4. The sun is always up somewhere, meaning that the sun can't be under the disc. This presents a conflict with point 2.
5. The stars visible from the northern hemisphere are different from the stars visible from the southern hemisphere.
6. In the northern hemisphere, the stars appear to revolve around Polaris. In the southern hemisphere, stars appear to revolve around Sigma Octantis. On a flat Earth the stars would all appear to revolve around the same point.
7. Commercial tours to the South Pole are available starting from Punta Arenas, Chile, and Cape Town, South Africa. Start from Chile, have your friend start from South Africa, and you will both arrive at the same place. Bring a compass with you to ensure that your boat goes due south and you aren't being brought to a fake South Pole.
8. The International Space Station is visible from the ground. http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/ (http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/) will tell you exactly when and where to look. You can even communicate with the station with a radio if you have the technological know-how.
9. Different points on the Earth have measurably different gravitational acceleration. This is to be expected since the Earth is not a perfect sphere and is spinning.
10. There are unaltered, non-composite photographs of the Earth from space which show its curvature.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 21, 2015, 12:13:18 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 12:27:12 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).
A proof for a globe shouldn't be an observation expected under an FE model. I would happily use most of those as an observation predicted by my model: why does it only work as evidence of RET?
Ah, right, presupposition, bias and dishonesty.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Kirk Johnson on December 21, 2015, 12:29:08 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).
A proof for a globe shouldn't be an observation expected under an FE model. I would happily use most of those as an observation predicted by my model: why does it only work as evidence of RET?
Ah, right, presupposition, bias and dishonesty.

Your model is the reason Aliens won't contact us afraid that they could catch your mental disease(s).
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 12:41:03 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).
A proof for a globe shouldn't be an observation expected under an FE model. I would happily use most of those as an observation predicted by my model: why does it only work as evidence of RET?
Ah, right, presupposition, bias and dishonesty.

My list is just observations we would expect with a RE but not with a FE. If you want to explain how these observations would be expected with a FE, I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: eggyk on December 21, 2015, 12:42:02 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).
A proof for a globe shouldn't be an observation expected under an FE model. I would happily use most of those as an observation predicted by my model: why does it only work as evidence of RET?
Ah, right, presupposition, bias and dishonesty.

Quote
1. Objects going past the horizon disappear from the bottom up. They don't shrink because they are getting farther away, they are going under the horizon line.

Point number one disproves that the world is flat, so there you are. That disagrees with your theory.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 12:49:37 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).
A proof for a globe shouldn't be an observation expected under an FE model. I would happily use most of those as an observation predicted by my model: why does it only work as evidence of RET?
Ah, right, presupposition, bias and dishonesty.

Quote
1. Objects going past the horizon disappear from the bottom up. They don't shrink because they are getting farther away, they are going under the horizon line.

Point number one disproves that the world is flat, so there you are. That disagrees with your theory.

That doesn't even disagree with classical FET. An answer's been offered countless times. (Besides, the downwards flow of aether would cause the exact same observation: over long distances, only the highest points on a ship would stay visible). So, no, it doesn't disprove that the world is flat, at all. It shows that if you try to copy and paste a flat disc into the RE model it fails, but why would you expect anything different?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 21, 2015, 12:56:25 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).
A proof for a globe shouldn't be an observation expected under an FE model. I would happily use most of those as an observation predicted by my model: why does it only work as evidence of RET?
Ah, right, presupposition, bias and dishonesty.

Quote
1. Objects going past the horizon disappear from the bottom up. They don't shrink because they are getting farther away, they are going under the horizon line.

Point number one disproves that the world is flat, so there you are. That disagrees with your theory.
Quote
That doesn't even disagree with classical FET.

Yes it does. If the sun and moon were on a giant track above us then we should see the sun shrinking and disappearing. But instead we see the sun the same size going down behind the horizon.
Quote
An answer's been offered countless times. (Besides, the downwards flow of aether would cause the exact same observation: over long distances, only the highest points on a ship would stay visible). So, no, it doesn't disprove that the world is flat, at all. It shows that if you try to copy and paste a flat disc into the RE model it fails, but why would you expect anything different?

And what measurements do you have to prove this? What evidence you have that Aether acts like you say it does?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 01:03:11 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).
A proof for a globe shouldn't be an observation expected under an FE model. I would happily use most of those as an observation predicted by my model: why does it only work as evidence of RET?
Ah, right, presupposition, bias and dishonesty.

Quote
1. Objects going past the horizon disappear from the bottom up. They don't shrink because they are getting farther away, they are going under the horizon line.

Point number one disproves that the world is flat, so there you are. That disagrees with your theory.
Quote
That doesn't even disagree with classical FET.

Yes it does. If the sun and moon were on a giant track above us then we should see the sun shrinking and disappearing. But instead we see the sun the same size going down behind the horizon.
Quote
An answer's been offered countless times. (Besides, the downwards flow of aether would cause the exact same observation: over long distances, only the highest points on a ship would stay visible). So, no, it doesn't disprove that the world is flat, at all. It shows that if you try to copy and paste a flat disc into the RE model it fails, but why would you expect anything different?

And what measurements do you have to prove this? What evidence you have that Aether acts like you say it does?

None of which does what you says it does, and proves a globe. You've provided observations explains by both models (even if you ignore the answers). How is that evidence for a globe over a disc?
Don't evade the question.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: inquisitive on December 21, 2015, 01:07:11 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).
A proof for a globe shouldn't be an observation expected under an FE model. I would happily use most of those as an observation predicted by my model: why does it only work as evidence of RET?
Ah, right, presupposition, bias and dishonesty.

Quote
1. Objects going past the horizon disappear from the bottom up. They don't shrink because they are getting farther away, they are going under the horizon line.

Point number one disproves that the world is flat, so there you are. That disagrees with your theory.
Quote
That doesn't even disagree with classical FET.

Yes it does. If the sun and moon were on a giant track above us then we should see the sun shrinking and disappearing. But instead we see the sun the same size going down behind the horizon.
Quote
An answer's been offered countless times. (Besides, the downwards flow of aether would cause the exact same observation: over long distances, only the highest points on a ship would stay visible). So, no, it doesn't disprove that the world is flat, at all. It shows that if you try to copy and paste a flat disc into the RE model it fails, but why would you expect anything different?

And what measurements do you have to prove this? What evidence you have that Aether acts like you say it does?

None of which does what you says it does, and proves a globe. You've provided observations explains by both models (even if you ignore the answers). How is that evidence for a globe over a disc?
Don't evade the question.
All measurements prove the earth is round.  If you disagree then provide your measurements.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 21, 2015, 01:20:31 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).

You want for us to copy and paste?  Are you dumb? 
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 01:24:43 PM
All measurements prove the earth is round.  If you disagree then provide your measurements.
Yep, that's about all I'd expect from a REer. Just assuming RET is the default. Would you like to share why they can't be evidence for FET despite being in line with what a model predicts, or are you just wasting time as per usual?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 01:31:04 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).

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

I wrote this list myself. I'm not copying and pasting from another REer, I'm copying and pasting from myself in another thread.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 21, 2015, 01:33:18 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).

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

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

Your fellow FE'ers think it is perfectly fine to copy/pasta and make it out to be a debate.  They are dumb. 
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 21, 2015, 01:36:25 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).

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

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

Your fellow FE'ers think it is perfectly fine to copy/pasta and make it out to be a debate.  They are dumb.

I'm not seeing why not. Of course you're going to say "see that's my point". But if I copy and paste something that is a valid argument then why it's not a valid argument?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 01:56:22 PM
jroa has appeared and the thread is already starting to derail. Can a FEer please just address my individual points? Don't just say the whole list is garbage. Go through each point and explain why it is incorrect or irrelevant.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: inquisitive on December 21, 2015, 02:03:46 PM
All measurements prove the earth is round.  If you disagree then provide your measurements.
Yep, that's about all I'd expect from a REer. Just assuming RET is the default. Would you like to share why they can't be evidence for FET despite being in line with what a model predicts, or are you just wasting time as per usual?
No, use the measurements to determine the size and shape of the object we have measured.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: sokarul on December 21, 2015, 02:07:22 PM
See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).

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

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

Your fellow FE'ers think it is perfectly fine to copy/pasta and make it out to be a debate.  They are dumb.
Poko is an fe'er?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Jadyyn on December 21, 2015, 02:35:10 PM
I am not sure why DEF is being brought into this. *I* am not even sure why the hemidisks are flat. What proof is there of that assumption?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: TheGreatGray on December 21, 2015, 02:37:06 PM
1) During a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow is always a circle. If the Earth were a sphere, the shadow would more often be an oval, and sometimes even a line. Similarly would occur with moon phases.
2) The sun does not produce a circular light that graduates from light to dark, it creates two distinct halves, one in day, one in night.
3) Planes take the most direct path possible. Planes that go from South America to Australia do not pass over the United States; they stay withing the Southern Hemisphere
4) The Earth experiences seasons
5) The Earth is magnetic (the north and south magnetic poles are not perfectly opposite by the way)
6) It is possible to get GPS signal over the Ocean or in a canyon, but not in a tunnel open on both ends.
7) The Earth experiences plate tectonics
8) You can see a farther distance at the top of Mount Everest at the ground than you can looking straight from sea level, despite that this requires your line of sight to pass through more atmosphere.
9) Earth gets hotter as we get deeper, because there is more pressure, because it is a sphere
10) It is not my fault that you don't have the resources to go to Antarctica, the Ocean, space, or find any picture that would prove that the Earth is round in a second.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 02:40:10 PM
jroa has appeared and the thread is already starting to derail. Can a FEer please just address my individual points? Don't just say the whole list is garbage. Go through each point and explain why it is incorrect or irrelevant.

I don't see why proposing as evidence an observation expected by DET and some FE models counts as evidence for RET, and not the others. Either this isn't satisfactory evidence, or I can use it in favor of DET. Let me know, I may add an entry to the other thread.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: TheGreatGray on December 21, 2015, 02:44:29 PM
jroa has appeared and the thread is already starting to derail. Can a FEer please just address my individual points? Don't just say the whole list is garbage. Go through each point and explain why it is incorrect or irrelevant.
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, due to the downwards flow of aether
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, due to the mechanism governing the Sun
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, due to the mechanism governing the Sun
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, due to the mechanism governing the Sun
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model trivially
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model trivially
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model trivially
  • Addressed countless times on this forum
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, due to the reason for gravity
  • Addressed countless times on this forum

I don't see why proposing as evidence an observation expected by DET and some FE models counts as evidence for RET, and not the others. Either this isn't satisfactory evidence, or I can use it in favor of DET. Let me know, I may add an entry to the other thread.
We asked for science, not aether.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 02:45:25 PM
We asked for science, not aether.
Quote
I don't see why proposing as evidence an observation expected by DET and some FE models counts as evidence for RET, and not the others. Either this isn't satisfactory evidence, or I can use it in favor of DET. Let me know, I may add an entry to the other thread.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 02:45:34 PM
I realize that 10 might not be a good reason because "muh conspiracy" but I've never actually seen 8 addressed. It usually just gets ignored.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 02:47:35 PM
I realize that 10 might not be a good reason because "muh conspiracy" but I've never actually seen 8 addressed. It usually just gets ignored.
10 isn't necessarily based on a conspiracy: just artistic license. The only such photos actively want to show curvature, but typically it's nearly impossible to see any at accessible altitudes (for publicly available images) due to what is a small amount even under RET, and blurring down to clouds.
All 8 demonstrates is that there's something in the sky.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: TheGreatGray on December 21, 2015, 02:47:59 PM
I realize that 10 might not be a good reason because "muh conspiracy" but I've never actually seen 8 addressed. It usually just gets ignored.
My 8 or your 8? Both of which I think fit the case
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: TheGreatGray on December 21, 2015, 02:51:17 PM
I realize that 10 might not be a good reason because "muh conspiracy" but I've never actually seen 8 addressed. It usually just gets ignored.
10 isn't necessarily based on a conspiracy: just artistic license. The only such photos actively want to show curvature, but typically it's nearly impossible to see any at accessible altitudes (for publicly available images) due to what is a small amount even under RET, and blurring down to clouds.
All 8 demonstrates is that there's something in the sky.
That something happens to prove the existance of gravity and that your whole conspiracy isnt true because you can actually see a satalliete. Was it you that said that a picture of the ISS from earth looked like a bug on the lens? YOU CAN TRACK THE SATELLITE, AND YOU CAN SEE IT. IT'S NOT OUR FAULT YOU REFUSE TO.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 02:52:43 PM
1) During a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow is always a circle. If the Earth were a sphere, the shadow would more often be an oval, and sometimes even a line. Similarly would occur with moon phases.
2) The sun does not produce a circular light that graduates from light to dark, it creates two distinct halves, one in day, one in night.
3) Planes take the most direct path possible. Planes that go from South America to Australia do not pass over the United States; they stay withing the Southern Hemisphere
4) The Earth experiences seasons
5) The Earth is magnetic (the north and south magnetic poles are not perfectly opposite by the way)
6) It is possible to get GPS signal over the Ocean or in a canyon, but not in a tunnel open on both ends.
7) The Earth experiences plate tectonics
8) You can see a farther distance at the top of Mount Everest at the ground than you can looking straight from sea level, despite that this requires your line of sight to pass through more atmosphere.
9) Earth gets hotter as we get deeper, because there is more pressure, because it is a sphere
10) It is not my fault that you don't have the resources to go to Antarctica, the Ocean, space, or find any picture that would prove that the Earth is round in a second.

For completeness

Quote
That something happens to prove the existance of gravity and that your whole conspiracy isnt true because you can actually see a satalliete. Was it you that said that a picture of the ISS from earth looked like a bug on the lens? YOU CAN TRACK THE SATELLITE, AND YOU CAN SEE IT. IT'S NOT OUR FAULT YOU REFUSE TO.
Nope, wasn't me. I typically stay out of discussions for which the DE answer is no different to the FE.
An object in the sky does not mean an object in space.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 02:53:51 PM
I realize that 10 might not be a good reason because "muh conspiracy" but I've never actually seen 8 addressed. It usually just gets ignored.
10 isn't necessarily based on a conspiracy: just artistic license. The only such photos actively want to show curvature, but typically it's nearly impossible to see any at accessible altitudes (for publicly available images) due to what is a small amount even under RET, and blurring down to clouds.
All 8 demonstrates is that there's something in the sky.

Right, but what would that something be? What would be keeping it in the sky? Why has no FE astronomer done any research at all into what this object might be?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: TheGreatGray on December 21, 2015, 03:02:56 PM
1) During a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow is always a circle. If the Earth were a sphere, the shadow would more often be an oval, and sometimes even a line. Similarly would occur with moon phases.
2) The sun does not produce a circular light that graduates from light to dark, it creates two distinct halves, one in day, one in night.
3) Planes take the most direct path possible. Planes that go from South America to Australia do not pass over the United States; they stay withing the Southern Hemisphere
4) The Earth experiences seasons
5) The Earth is magnetic (the north and south magnetic poles are not perfectly opposite by the way)
6) It is possible to get GPS signal over the Ocean or in a canyon, but not in a tunnel open on both ends.
7) The Earth experiences plate tectonics
8) You can see a farther distance at the top of Mount Everest at the ground than you can looking straight from sea level, despite that this requires your line of sight to pass through more atmosphere.
9) Earth gets hotter as we get deeper, because there is more pressure, because it is a sphere
10) It is not my fault that you don't have the resources to go to Antarctica, the Ocean, space, or find any picture that would prove that the Earth is round in a second.

For completeness
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, not the Earth's shadow
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, due to the mecahnism governing the Sun
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, trivially
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, trivially
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, trivially
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model and even classical FE, due to how stratellites work
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, trivially
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model and even classical FE due to air density
  • Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, trivially
  • Not proof of anything

Quote
That something happens to prove the existance of gravity and that your whole conspiracy isnt true because you can actually see a satalliete. Was it you that said that a picture of the ISS from earth looked like a bug on the lens? YOU CAN TRACK THE SATELLITE, AND YOU CAN SEE IT. IT'S NOT OUR FAULT YOU REFUSE TO.
Nope, wasn't me. I typically stay out of discussions for which the DE answer is no different to the FE.
An object in the sky does not mean an object in space.
The international space station cannot "fly in the sky" it has no wings, it is less bouyant than air, it does not have enough propulsion to fly... Don't try to tell me you think it's a blimp.
It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 03:10:01 PM
It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.
Tiny little nitpicking detail. The ISS doesn't actually orbit in total vacuum. It is still technically inside the atmosphere and experiences slight atmospheric drag, so it needs to be boosted occasionally to maintain altitude.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: TheGreatGray on December 21, 2015, 03:12:50 PM
It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.
Tiny little nitpicking detail. The ISS doesn't actually orbit in total vacuum. It is still technically inside the atmosphere and experiences slight atmospheric drag, so it needs to be boosted occasionally to maintain altitude.
I thought about that as I was typing it. Thank you for the criticism for accuracy.  It will prevent them from twisting the words and derailing the thread.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 03:16:41 PM
It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.
Tiny little nitpicking detail. The ISS doesn't actually orbit in total vacuum. It is still technically inside the atmosphere and experiences slight atmospheric drag, so it needs to be boosted occasionally to maintain altitude.
I thought about that as I was typing it. Thank you for the criticism for accuracy.  It will prevent them from twisting the words and derailing the thread.

We need to keep each other on our toes. After all, we are the ones will actual science backing up what we say.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 03:17:15 PM
Quote
Right, but what would that something be? What would be keeping it in the sky? Why has no FE astronomer done any research at all into what this object might be?
The international space station cannot "fly in the sky" it has no wings, it is less bouyant than air, it does not have enough propulsion to fly... Don't try to tell me you think it's a blimp.
It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.
Because we have our priorities straight, and an object in the sky doesn't trump every other aspect of FET. It is notoriously difficult to actually pinpoint the ISS with a telescope; it's small, fast, and a telescope powerful enough to see it in any detail will be staring at a tiny patch of sky, with no landmarks beyond the darkness to guide you to the path of the ISS.
Claims that the ISS is less buoyant or doesn't have the propulsion to fly seem reliant on assuming you're just taking the RE blueprints of a space station and dropping them in the sky. It's hardly surprising that won't work. There are all manner of obects that can fly, I have no desire to list them all: if you are claiming it is evidence of RET, and so not reconcilable with an FE model, you're the ones who actually need to justify that claim. I simply need possibility, and the existence of flying machines seems all I need.

Quote
I thought about that as I was typing it. Thank you for the criticism for accuracy.  It will prevent them from twisting the words and derailing the thread.
That's jroa's purveiw. He's a RE troll, check his early posts.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 03:23:26 PM
Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 03:24:08 PM
Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.
Be serious.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 03:42:06 PM
Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.
Be serious.

I am serious. There is some unidentified object flying high in the sky with a predictable pattern and you don't care about how that works in your theory? If some UFO entered Earth's atmosphere and started flying by some unknown mechanism, you can bet your ass that scientists from all over the world would be on that immediately.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 03:43:35 PM
Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.
Be serious.

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

What exactly makes you think it's not human-built?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Poko on December 21, 2015, 03:50:00 PM
Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.
Be serious.

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

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

Even if it is human-built, studying the ISS would still be a huge step in developing your Dual-Earth theory. Don't you want to see how the ISS and other satellites fit in with all the other objects in the sky?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Andromeda Galaxy on December 21, 2015, 03:59:27 PM
Quote
Right, but what would that something be? What would be keeping it in the sky? Why has no FE astronomer done any research at all into what this object might be?
The international space station cannot "fly in the sky" it has no wings, it is less bouyant than air, it does not have enough propulsion to fly... Don't try to tell me you think it's a blimp.
It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.
Because we have our priorities straight, and an object in the sky doesn't trump every other aspect of FET. It is notoriously difficult to actually pinpoint the ISS with a telescope; it's small, fast, and a telescope powerful enough to see it in any detail will be staring at a tiny patch of sky, with no landmarks beyond the darkness to guide you to the path of the ISS.
Claims that the ISS is less buoyant or doesn't have the propulsion to fly seem reliant on assuming you're just taking the RE blueprints of a space station and dropping them in the sky. It's hardly surprising that won't work. There are all manner of obects that can fly, I have no desire to list them all: if you are claiming it is evidence of RET, and so not reconcilable with an FE model, you're the ones who actually need to justify that claim. I simply need possibility, and the existence of flying machines seems all I need.

Quote
I thought about that as I was typing it. Thank you for the criticism for accuracy.  It will prevent them from twisting the words and derailing the thread.
That's jroa's purveiw. He's a RE troll, check his early posts.

It is indeed difficult to sight with a telescope, but you don't need a scope to see it.

It makes about 15 passes a day, so yeah, it's moving "fast"

The ISS has roughly the same magnitude as planet Venus, Venus being the third brightest thing in the night sky.

I have tracked it with a manual 8" C8 at low mag with a wide FOV eyepiece. (x40 mag)

With binoculars it's much more easily observed.

If you're interested in seeing it for yourself, go online and check the next visible pass for your state.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 04:14:30 PM
Quote
Even if it is human-built, studying the ISS would still be a huge step in developing your Dual-Earth theory. Don't you want to see how the ISS and other satellites fit in with all the other objects in the sky?
Why would there be any connection whatsoever?
And it remains minor compared to multiple other aspects.

Quote
It is indeed difficult to sight with a telescope, but you don't need a scope to see it.
I meant in detail. the naked eye shows little more than a spot of light. Even so, none of what you said is particularly important. What matters is whether or not it's in space.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Andromeda Galaxy on December 21, 2015, 04:21:08 PM
Quote
Even if it is human-built, studying the ISS would still be a huge step in developing your Dual-Earth theory. Don't you want to see how the ISS and other satellites fit in with all the other objects in the sky?
Why would there be any connection whatsoever?
And it remains minor compared to multiple other aspects.

Quote
It is indeed difficult to sight with a telescope, but you don't need a scope to see it.
I meant in detail. the naked eye shows little more than a spot of light. Even so, none of what you said is particularly important. What matters is whether or not it's in space.

Watch the live onboard feed at the same time you view it overhead, just the first step of many to gather evidence to assist in your DET.

Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 04:22:55 PM
Watch the live onboard feed at the same time you view it overhead, just the first step of many to gather evidence to assist in your DET.
Nothing more than a waste of time. This thread is about proofs for a globe. Can you provide any such observation which would be actual evidence for a globe?
I am not going to obsess over trivialities.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Andromeda Galaxy on December 21, 2015, 04:30:16 PM
Watch the live onboard feed at the same time you view it overhead, just the first step of many to gather evidence to assist in your DET.
Nothing more than a waste of time. This thread is about proofs for a globe. Can you provide any such observation which would be actual evidence for a globe?
I am not going to obsess over trivialities.

Well, I was actually trying to help you....

You make wild assumptions and your assumptions aren't fact unless you back them up dude.

Answer me this, have you ever observed the ISS yourself, and did you notice anything that separates it from let's say a commercial airliner?

Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 04:36:22 PM
Watch the live onboard feed at the same time you view it overhead, just the first step of many to gather evidence to assist in your DET.
Nothing more than a waste of time. This thread is about proofs for a globe. Can you provide any such observation which would be actual evidence for a globe?
I am not going to obsess over trivialities.

Well, I was actually trying to help you....

You make wild assumptions and your assumptions aren't fact unless you back them up dude.

Answer me this, have you ever observed the ISS yourself, and did you notice anything that separates it from let's say a commercial airliner?

You're not helping. Again, I am not going to obsess over trivialities. Though I may not be able to supply specific blueprints or personnel manifest, I am content with the DE and FE explanation for the ISS. The fact it is not in space is a conclusion of the DE model, not an assumption.
I see no reason to compare it to a commercial airliner, it is clearly not one. What is your point?

Given the topic of the thread, you should be able to provide proof that the ISS is indeed in space. if not, your points are as much an assumption as you claim mine are; we merely work from the conclusions inherent from our respective models.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 04:52:20 PM
Watch the live onboard feed at the same time you view it overhead, just the first step of many to gather evidence to assist in your DET.
Nothing more than a waste of time. This thread is about proofs for a globe. Can you provide any such observation which would be actual evidence for a globe?
I am not going to obsess over trivialities.

Well, I was actually trying to help you....

You make wild assumptions and your assumptions aren't fact unless you back them up dude.

Answer me this, have you ever observed the ISS yourself, and did you notice anything that separates it from let's say a commercial airliner?

You're not helping. Again, I am not going to obsess over trivialities. Though I may not be able to supply specific blueprints or personnel manifest, I am content with the DE and FE explanation for the ISS. The fact it is not in space is a conclusion of the DE model, not an assumption.
I see no reason to compare it to a commercial airliner, it is clearly not one. What is your point?

Given the topic of the thread, you should be able to provide proof that the ISS is indeed in space. if not, your points are as much an assumption as you claim mine are; we merely work from the conclusions inherent from our respective models.
How about show us some proof the ISS is not in space? Other then saying a picture is fake or it is an airplane, which would just be assertion.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 04:56:59 PM
I'm going to stop feeding the troll. Come back when you can justify a single claim you make.
And let's add 'can pay the slightest attention to the thread,' to that list.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 05:04:39 PM
I'm getting better. Usually takes you longer to run out of an argument.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 05:06:07 PM
Stop. Wasting. Time.
Address what has been said or go away. No one wants your whining and derailments.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 05:37:16 PM
Stop. Wasting. Time.
Address what has been said or go away. No one wants your whining and derailments.
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 03:02:30 AM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 04:05:45 AM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
Apparently TFES ignores it.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Mikey T. on December 22, 2015, 08:07:26 AM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
No you can ignore an argument that has been demonstrated to be false several times over, like DET or FET.  Since I have not been around much, I am sure no one has questioned your proof of what aether is lately.  I would like to know what you think it is again.  Include the part about aether "talking" to you also, sorry, the part about it imparting information about it's existence directly to you.  Also include your assumptions of aether being everything, or rather all matter and energy is a form of aether.  I could go quoting previous posts of yours.  You never would explain before. 
I digress, this is not the thread for debunking DET.  My apologies for contributing to the derailment.
 
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:10:33 AM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
No you can ignore an argument that has been demonstrated to be false several times over, like DET or FET.  Since I have not been around much, I am sure no one has questioned your proof of what aether is lately.  I would like to know what you think it is again.  Include the part about aether "talking" to you also, sorry, the part about it imparting information about it's existence directly to you.  Also include your assumptions of aether being everything, or rather all matter and energy is a form of aether.  I could go quoting previous posts of yours.  You never would explain before. 
I digress, this is not the thread for debunking DET.  My apologies for contributing to the derailment.

What are you whinging about now? The model is linked to and referred to in the description. the definition is fixed, unaltering, openly given, and irrelevant to your straw men which were never part of DET, merely a personal belief resulting from illness: as was explicitly stated multiple times.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 08:11:15 AM
1. Round shape of the Earth's shadow during lunar ecllipse.
2. Things dissapearing bottom first over the horizon. Always.
3. Ascending moves the horizon away and we can see further.
4. Stellar motion varies on different hemisphere. There are two poles around which everything rotates.
5. Vertical circumnavigation.
6. Working spherical geometry.
7. Sun sets and sun rises.
8. Direct measurement of angles of sun rays.
9. Man made things orbiting the planet.
10. Direct non-edited photo of the Earth.

This thread wins vs the other, even though we are on FE forum. Nice job, FErs.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:12:52 AM
This thread wins vs the other, even though we are on FE forum. Nice job, FErs.
Personally I prefer quality over quantity. If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 08:24:53 AM
To prove something, only one proof is sufficient. Giving distinct proofs makes the fact stronger and less reliable on possible mistakes.

You can prove your DET but it relies on the existance of aether. Some FE proofs I have just presented do not even need a gravity or other assumptions. Just pure geometry.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 08:28:37 AM
This thread wins vs the other, even though we are on FE forum. Nice job, FErs.
Personally I prefer quality over quantity. If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.
Yes, but are you going to provide where the observer and what is observed is? You better have A LOT of quality (like 1 thing).

Also, your response should go into the "ten proofs for a FE" instead of here.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:39:33 AM
To prove something, only one proof is sufficient. Giving distinct proofs makes the fact stronger and less reliable on possible mistakes.

You can prove your DET but it relies on the existance of aether. Some FE proofs I have just presented do not even need a gravity or other assumptions. Just pure geometry.
Pure geometry reliant on certain assumptions about what's observed. If you would care to address what I actually said:

Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.


My explanations rely on one assumption: RET also relies on certain assumptions. All science does. At a basic level there's the axiom that the universe is explicable. What's your point?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:44:57 AM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
I'm not ignoring a working model because yours doesn't work. It can't even tell you where you are on the model so why would anyone think it "works"?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:47:45 AM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
I'm not ignoring a working model because yours doesn't work. It can't even tell you where you are on the model so why would anyone think it "works"?
What the fuck are you on about now? Are you just copying Jadyyn's incoherencies?
"It can't even tell you where you are on the model." What the fuck is that meant to mean?!

How about justifying your claims that DET doesn't work for once in your miserable life. STOP WASTING MY TIME. You were just managing a few vaguely substantive discussions, and now you're back to inexplicable trolling. Great.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:53:06 AM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
I'm not ignoring a working model because yours doesn't work. It can't even tell you where you are on the model so why would anyone think it "works"?
What the fuck are you on about now? Are you just copying Jadyyn's incoherencies?
"It can't even tell you where you are on the model." What the fuck is that meant to mean?!

How about justifying your claims that DET doesn't work for once in your miserable life. STOP WASTING MY TIME. You were just managing a few vaguely substantive discussions, and now you're back to inexplicable trolling. Great.
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 09:09:36 AM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
I'm not ignoring a working model because yours doesn't work. It can't even tell you where you are on the model so why would anyone think it "works"?
What the fuck are you on about now? Are you just copying Jadyyn's incoherencies?
"It can't even tell you where you are on the model." What the fuck is that meant to mean?!

How about justifying your claims that DET doesn't work for once in your miserable life. STOP WASTING MY TIME. You were just managing a few vaguely substantive discussions, and now you're back to inexplicable trolling. Great.
BTW, I just went to your new DEF site and it is basically the same as before with the same problems.

Since, I have said this LOTS of times, if there is no map, you can't tell where anything is in DEF except the poles and equators. Therefore, you can not tell distances or what anyone/anything observes and therefore can not make predictions either. This is particularly important aligning telescopes. You have never provided angles or how they are calculated in DEF because you don't know where the telescopes are or how high the NCP and SCP are.

For you saying you do not understand the questions is BS.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 09:11:51 AM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
I'm not ignoring a working model because yours doesn't work. It can't even tell you where you are on the model so why would anyone think it "works"?
What the fuck are you on about now? Are you just copying Jadyyn's incoherencies?
"It can't even tell you where you are on the model." What the fuck is that meant to mean?!

How about justifying your claims that DET doesn't work for once in your miserable life. STOP WASTING MY TIME. You were just managing a few vaguely substantive discussions, and now you're back to inexplicable trolling. Great.
BTW, I just went to your new DEF site and it is basically the same as before with the same problems.

Since, I have said this LOTS of times, if there is no map, you can't tell where anything is in DEF except the poles and equators. Therefore, you can not tell distances or what anyone/anything observes and therefore can not make predictions either. This is particularly important aligning telescopes. You have never provided angles or how they are calculated in DEF because you don't know where the telescopes are or how high the NCP and SCP are.

For you saying you do not understand the questions is BS.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 09:51:29 AM
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
It's not hard to understand: it's very simple to understand. it's also very clearly bullshit. You don't need to know the exact speed of a bus to know not to run in front of it, and you don't need to know your exact geographical position to know what direction another place is. Observations of circumpolar stars, for example, make sense only with each hemiplane defined.
You're wasting time, and that's all. When you have actual substance, let me know.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 10:14:42 AM
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
It's not hard to understand: it's very simple to understand. it's also very clearly bullshit. You don't need to know the exact speed of a bus to know not to run in front of it, and you don't need to know your exact geographical position to know what direction another place is. Observations of circumpolar stars, for example, make sense only with each hemiplane defined.
You're wasting time, and that's all. When you have actual substance, let me know.
Yep, this is what he is telling amateur astronomers, TV dish installers, planes, ships and everyone else who actually needs to know where they are to do something in the REAL world. In the DE fantasy world, who cares? There are no real people except JRowe on it anyways, sitting in his chair theorizing and insulting people.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 10:30:50 AM
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
It's not hard to understand: it's very simple to understand. it's also very clearly bullshit. You don't need to know the exact speed of a bus to know not to run in front of it, and you don't need to know your exact geographical position to know what direction another place is. Observations of circumpolar stars, for example, make sense only with each hemiplane defined.
You're wasting time, and that's all. When you have actual substance, let me know.
Yep, this is what he is telling amateur astronomers, TV dish installers, planes, ships and everyone else who actually needs to know where they are to do something in the REAL world. In the DE fantasy world, who cares? There are no real people except JRowe on it anyways, sitting in his chair theorizing and insulting people.
All he does is beat around the bush to dodge the question and then try to get you to justify something instead without ever justifying his own claims other then saying it is in the model, (that he made up all by himself).
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 10:44:24 AM
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
It's not hard to understand: it's very simple to understand. it's also very clearly bullshit. You don't need to know the exact speed of a bus to know not to run in front of it, and you don't need to know your exact geographical position to know what direction another place is. Observations of circumpolar stars, for example, make sense only with each hemiplane defined.
You're wasting time, and that's all. When you have actual substance, let me know.
Yep, this is what he is telling amateur astronomers, TV dish installers, planes, ships and everyone else who actually needs to know where they are to do something in the REAL world. In the DE fantasy world, who cares? There are no real people except JRowe on it anyways, sitting in his chair theorizing and insulting people.
All he does is beat around the bush to dodge the question and then try to get you to justify something instead without ever justifying his own claims other then saying it is in the model, (that he made up all by himself).

So, ignoring every single thing I have said to you seems the best you have. Ok then. Do you feel able to make an actual argument.
I justify everything I say as far as it needs justifying. When all I claim is possibility, I will not go any further than that. When you claim a fact, you should justify that.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 10:58:52 AM
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
It's not hard to understand: it's very simple to understand. it's also very clearly bullshit. You don't need to know the exact speed of a bus to know not to run in front of it, and you don't need to know your exact geographical position to know what direction another place is. Observations of circumpolar stars, for example, make sense only with each hemiplane defined.
You're wasting time, and that's all. When you have actual substance, let me know.
Yep, this is what he is telling amateur astronomers, TV dish installers, planes, ships and everyone else who actually needs to know where they are to do something in the REAL world. In the DE fantasy world, who cares? There are no real people except JRowe on it anyways, sitting in his chair theorizing and insulting people.
All he does is beat around the bush to dodge the question and then try to get you to justify something instead without ever justifying his own claims other then saying it is in the model, (that he made up all by himself).

So, ignoring every single thing I have said to you seems the best you have. Ok then. Do you feel able to make an actual argument.
I justify everything I say as far as it needs justifying. When all I claim is possibility, I will not go any further than that. When you claim a fact, you should justify that.
Pretty sure 1000's of years of science has already done that. But I guess every scientist throughout time and multiple countries all conspired to lie to the world  ::)
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 12:33:30 PM
So, argument from tradition, and majority. Fallacies still. Plus a dash of a straw man
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:30:40 PM
So, argument from tradition, and majority. Fallacies still. Plus a dash of a straw man
Wow, all lies. I'm talking about the same science you used to build your DEF. So if you are saying that is is not reliable then neither is your model.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 01:35:15 PM
So, argument from tradition, and majority. Fallacies still. Plus a dash of a straw man
Wow, all lies. I'm talking about the same science you used to build your DEF. So if you are saying that is is not reliable then neither is your model.
Wow, straw man. Get a life.

I work from the evidence. You work from presupposing an interpretation and refusing to justify it or address any alternative.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:47:53 PM
So, argument from tradition, and majority. Fallacies still. Plus a dash of a straw man
Wow, all lies. I'm talking about the same science you used to build your DEF. So if you are saying that is is not reliable then neither is your model.
Wow, straw man. Get a life.

I work from the evidence. You work from presupposing an interpretation and refusing to justify it or address any alternative.
Pretty sure I work from evidence. Logical deduction is not evidence though so where is yours?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: inquisitive on December 22, 2015, 01:51:22 PM
So, argument from tradition, and majority. Fallacies still. Plus a dash of a straw man
Wow, all lies. I'm talking about the same science you used to build your DEF. So if you are saying that is is not reliable then neither is your model.
Wow, straw man. Get a life.

I work from the evidence. You work from presupposing an interpretation and refusing to justify it or address any alternative.
Please provide one piece of your evidence here that we can discuss.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 01:52:37 PM
Pretty sure I work from evidence. Logical deduction is not evidence though so where is yours?
STOP IGNROING EVERY FUCKING WORD I SAY YOU MORONIC penguin. STOP SPAMMING THE FORUM WITH YOUR BULLSHIT.

YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY AND THEN ACT LIKE THAT'S AN ARGUMENT
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:57:12 PM
Pretty sure I work from evidence. Logical deduction is not evidence though so where is yours?
STOP IGNROING EVERY FUCKING WORD I SAY YOU MORONIC penguin. STOP SPAMMING THE FORUM WITH YOUR BULLSHIT.

YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY AND THEN ACT LIKE THAT'S AN ARGUMENT
Even if that is what I was doing, why not? That is all you have done.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 01:57:49 PM
Even if that is what I was doing, why not? That is all you have done.

STOP IGNROING EVERY FUCKING WORD I SAY YOU MORONIC penguin. STOP SPAMMING THE FORUM WITH YOUR BULLSHIT.

YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY AND THEN ACT LIKE THAT'S AN ARGUMENT
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 02:35:50 PM
And back to Ad Hominem again...
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Kirk Johnson on December 22, 2015, 05:33:58 PM
And back to Ad Hominem again...

You really didn't knew this was going to happen when you signed up? Then you must be smart as a flat earther  ;D
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 11:58:09 PM
To prove something, only one proof is sufficient. Giving distinct proofs makes the fact stronger and less reliable on possible mistakes.

You can prove your DET but it relies on the existance of aether. Some FE proofs I have just presented do not even need a gravity or other assumptions. Just pure geometry.
Pure geometry reliant on certain assumptions about what's observed.
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.

If you would care to address what I actually said:
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.
This thread is about globe.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 03:37:33 AM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.


Quote
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

This thread is about globe.
True, but the point itself stands. What is it that you accept as proof?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Jadyyn on December 23, 2015, 06:33:15 AM
To prove something, only one proof is sufficient. Giving distinct proofs makes the fact stronger and less reliable on possible mistakes.

You can prove your DET but it relies on the existance of aether. Some FE proofs I have just presented do not even need a gravity or other assumptions. Just pure geometry.
Pure geometry reliant on certain assumptions about what's observed.
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.

If you would care to address what I actually said:
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.
This thread is about globe.
Actually, you are correct about geometry, hence aligning telescopes:
This is pure 100% geometry and its properties. No amount of BS or hand-waving will change these geometric properties and reality.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Jadyyn on December 23, 2015, 06:46:22 AM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.
I proposed a different, "easy" experiment that was blown off:

The Sun (metal heated white-hot by friction encased in a rock shell) inside the Earth causes heat. This is enough heat to make magma from under the poles to the equator without burning up people at the equator somehow. It also somehow distributes the heat properly on the Earth.

The Moon is the same. Besides the obvious question of why the rocky part of the Moon doesn't melt or glow like magma, the Moon, being white-hot metal should also produce heat. Can we get some thermal equipment looking at the Moon in the sky and see if it, like the Sun, is hot?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Brouwer on December 23, 2015, 09:24:52 AM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.
Well, that is your opinion. The statement is still valid for the Earth and one can confirm spherical geometry of it with sufficient resources. You do not need to assume anything. You just need to measure few things. Or use the website that provides flight distances between various cities to quickly find that the flat Earth case makes those distances impossible.

Quote
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

This thread is about globe.
True, but the point itself stands. What is it that you accept as proof?
A precise and valid proof = a logic sequence of statements following from basic rules of logic, respecting existing facts, not contradicting already existing things and following rules of scientific research.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 09:32:02 AM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.
Well, that is your opinion. The statement is still valid for the Earth and one can confirm spherical geometry of it with sufficient resources. You do not need to assume anything. You just need to measure few things. Or use the website that provides flight distances between various cities to quickly find that the flat Earth case makes those distances impossible.
Only if you assume distance is the only variable at play, which it clearly wouldn't be. All even the classical FE model needs is to justify the existence of, say, air currents, especially on the outer half, and the flight times argument fails.
The DE model doesn't share that flaw with classical FET, but even so the illustration stands. The argument relies on certain assumptions, whether you notice them or not. Simply because some conceivable experiments could confirm an Earth shape (if that were possible) means nothing until said experiments are reliably performed.

Quote
Quote
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

This thread is about globe.
True, but the point itself stands. What is it that you accept as proof?
A precise and valid proof = a logic sequence of statements following from basic rules of logic, respecting existing facts, not contradicting already existing things and following rules of scientific research.
Technically accurate, practically useless.
Take an observation that is explained by RET, and that contradicts some FE models, but is nonetheless accepted and explained by other FE models. Would that observation be counted as proof of RET, by your definition?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Jadyyn on December 23, 2015, 09:57:28 AM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.
Well, that is your opinion. The statement is still valid for the Earth and one can confirm spherical geometry of it with sufficient resources. You do not need to assume anything. You just need to measure few things. Or use the website that provides flight distances between various cities to quickly find that the flat Earth case makes those distances impossible.
Only if you assume distance is the only variable at play, which it clearly wouldn't be. All even the classical FE model needs is to justify the existence of, say, air currents, especially on the outer half, and the flight times argument fails.
The DE model doesn't share that flaw with classical FET, but even so the illustration stands. The argument relies on certain assumptions, whether you notice them or not. Simply because some conceivable experiments could confirm an Earth shape (if that were possible) means nothing until said experiments are reliably performed.

Quote
Quote
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

This thread is about globe.
True, but the point itself stands. What is it that you accept as proof?
A precise and valid proof = a logic sequence of statements following from basic rules of logic, respecting existing facts, not contradicting already existing things and following rules of scientific research.
Technically accurate, practically useless.
Take an observation that is explained by RET, and that contradicts some FE models, but is nonetheless accepted and explained by other FE models. Would that observation be counted as proof of RET, by your definition?
As pointed out in the "telescope alignment" thread, thousands of equatorially mounted telescopes are aligned to the axis of rotation of the sky that match the observer's latitudes. This is THOUSANDS of experiments, many done daily/nightly, accurate to minutes or seconds of arc, that demonstrate the Earth is spherical (the Eratosthenes Experiment in reverse). JRowe does not want to believe it (it disproves DEF and ALL FLAT models in general). So he ignores this (and me).

BTW, these ARE reliably performed as evidenced by the pictures taken through the telescopes (e.g. 200" Mt Palomar telescope).

I find it funny that DEF hasn't actually performed ANY experiment and JRowe questions astronomers performing the "experiments" daily to a high degree of accuracy.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: EternalHoid on December 23, 2015, 02:06:54 PM
This list is a list of points that disprove normal flat earth theory,
1. Measurable variations in gravity would tear the disk apart if there was a universal accelerator, since if different parts of the disk were accelerating at different rates.
2. Foucault pendulum.
3. The corolise effect, visible in hurricanes.
4. The sun should change shape as it moves across the sky, and it shouldn't cross the horizon.
If you can't disprove all four points then FET is wrong.
As a bonus, reasons why RET is better.
1. We have working maps.
2. We can work out the paths of the planets in advance.
3. We can predict eclipse.
4. We can predict the motion of the stars.
Mainly it can make accurate mathematical predictions, something none of the other models do, and don’t start saying “We have no resources”, learn geometry and make a few working equations to find the motion of any planet or star, problem is this can’t happen because your models don’t work.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Brouwer on December 23, 2015, 10:57:36 PM
Only if you assume distance is the only variable at play, which it clearly wouldn't be. All even the classical FE model needs is to justify the existence of, say, air currents, especially on the outer half, and the flight times argument fails.
The DE model doesn't share that flaw with classical FET, but even so the illustration stands. The argument relies on certain assumptions, whether you notice them or not. Simply because some conceivable experiments could confirm an Earth shape (if that were possible) means nothing until said experiments are reliably performed.
That sounds a bit ridiculous. You do not need to fly in 100% straight line. Even with small deviation you can easily notice significat problems. Also, 100 years of aviation and development in science and it would not be possible? Why do you need any experiment when there are thousands made each day? Flight routes and their distances are your experiments. But it is up to you whether you think they are reliable or not. As I stated, small errors will not change the final result.

Also, your DE model is obviously flawed in that manner. Two flat or very slightly curved discs can be proven wrong using simple geometry. But you resist to understand this.

Technically accurate, practically useless.
Speak for yourself.

Take an observation that is explained by RET, and that contradicts some FE models, but is nonetheless accepted and explained by other FE models. Would that observation be counted as proof of RET, by your definition?
If you rely on RET as an explaination, then you have a circluar argument. Please restate your qeuestion.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 24, 2015, 04:54:48 AM
Quote
That sounds a bit ridiculous. You do not need to fly in 100% straight line. Even with small deviation you can easily notice significat problems. Also, 100 years of aviation and development in science and it would not be possible? Why do you need any experiment when there are thousands made each day? Flight routes and their distances are your experiments. But it is up to you whether you think they are reliable or not. As I stated, small errors will not change the final result.
Only if they are indeed small changes.

Quote
Also, your DE model is obviously flawed in that manner. Two flat or very slightly curved discs can be proven wrong using simple geometry. But you resist to understand this.
There is nothing to understand. If "Oh, it's impossible because of an argument I refuse to give or an experiment that hasn't been performed," is the sole substance of the argument you're giving, I understand it just fine: it's assertion, no more.

Quote
If you rely on RET as an explaination, then you have a circluar argument. Please restate your qeuestion.
What needs restating? Pretty much all that's been provided in this thread as evidence for RET, are observations explained also by FE models. Circular arguments, by your own admission.

Quote
This list is a list of points that disprove normal flat earth theory,
By 'normal' I assume you mean 'drastic oversimplification favored by REers too lazy to learn or use the search function, and trolls.'

Quote
Mainly it can make accurate mathematical predictions, something none of the other models do, and don’t start saying “We have no resources”, learn geometry and make a few working equations to find the motion of any planet or star, problem is this can’t happen because your models don’t work.
Not wanting me to say it won't alter the fact it's relevant. Inevitably, the model with dramatically better funding and manpower is going to provide more details. What is your point?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 24, 2015, 09:49:50 AM
Wow, evade much?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: EternalHoid on December 24, 2015, 09:57:37 AM
Quote
This list is a list of points that disprove normal flat earth theory,
By 'normal' I assume you mean 'drastic oversimplification favored by REers too lazy to learn or use the search function, and trolls.
No I mean the one the website endorses and describes in it's wiki. This one http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=HomePage (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=HomePage)
And Ill say it again, learn geometry and make a few working equations to find the motion of any planet or star, or even a method of making a map of the planet(a method, not expecting you to make a map, that would need resources, but making a method doesn't)
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Brouwer on December 24, 2015, 09:59:49 AM
Take an observation that is explained by RET, and that contradicts some FE models, but is nonetheless accepted and explained by other FE models. Would that observation be counted as proof of RET, by your definition?
This is circular. You take something explained by the RE (so based on the fact the Earth is round) and want to observe something to be a proof of RE.

You do not seem to understand that the geometry of an object can be determined and based on that geometry we can figure what kind of object we are facing with.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on December 24, 2015, 10:54:46 AM
Quote
No I mean the one the website endorses and describes in it's wiki.
A wiki describing, for example, celestial gravitation which explains the variation in gravity on the Earth. So, nope, you clearly weren't addressing that.

Quote
even a method of making a map of the planet
...You are aware cartography exists, right?

Quote
You do not seem to understand that the geometry of an object can be determined and based on that geometry we can figure what kind of object we are facing with.
I understand that. You don't seem to understand that you haven't provided any such proof that the Earth is round.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: inquisitive on December 24, 2015, 12:00:17 PM
Quote
No I mean the one the website endorses and describes in it's wiki.
A wiki describing, for example, celestial gravitation which explains the variation in gravity on the Earth. So, nope, you clearly weren't addressing that.

Quote
even a method of making a map of the planet
...You are aware cartography exists, right?

Quote
You do not seem to understand that the geometry of an object can be determined and based on that geometry we can figure what kind of object we are facing with.
I understand that. You don't seem to understand that you haven't provided any such proof that the Earth is round.
As explained before - the measurement and observation of the sun, eg. sunsets etc., the angle of satellite communication dishes, measurements between locations, flight times, GPS operation.

Plus no alternative proof, such as a map, alternative distances.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: getrealzommb on December 24, 2015, 12:08:00 PM
1.  Big bang theory
2.  Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
3.  Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
4.  Universal Law of Gravitation
5.  Newton's Laws of Motion
6.  Thermodynamics
7.  Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
8.  Theory of General Relativity
9.  Observation of the world in witch I live
10. The way in witch all of the above gel together to make a whole is a beautiful thing that can be tested, both mathematically and physically in the real world.

A spherical earth spinning on an axis, in a solar system, rotating its sun, as other planets do. In its galaxy, in an expanding universe.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: EternalHoid on December 24, 2015, 12:28:52 PM
"celestial gravitation" thats bullshit, gravity exists or it doesn't, pick one. Even then my other points still stand.
"You are aware cartography exists, right?" Yep and it says the earth is round.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Brouwer on December 24, 2015, 12:36:24 PM
You don't seem to understand that you haven't provided any such proof that the Earth is round.
I did - I gave you an idea based on flight routes. There are poeple on this forum who had showed multiple times that flight distances does not work with planar geometry.

Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Jadyyn on December 25, 2015, 09:24:41 AM
*I* keep asking - how does DEF even know the hemidisks are flat and not 2 semi-globes?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 25, 2015, 09:28:05 AM
*I* keep asking - how does DEF even know the hemidisks are flat and not 2 semi-globes?

You are also a troll and never contribute anything to the discussion, other then accusing other people of being trolls.  Go away. 
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Jadyyn on December 25, 2015, 10:39:06 AM
*I* keep asking - how does DEF even know the hemidisks are flat and not 2 semi-globes?

You are also a troll and never contribute anything to the discussion, other then accusing other people of being trolls.  Go away.
I don't get it. JRoweSkeptic is on this thread pushing DEF (FE model - what does it have to do with globes?). When I ask how DEF knows the 2 hemidisks are not 2 semi-globes (this is thread is about globes isn't it?) then I am trolling and not contributing anything? jroa, you should really read what this thread is about.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 25, 2015, 10:40:42 AM
*I* keep asking - how does DEF even know the hemidisks are flat and not 2 semi-globes?

You are also a troll and never contribute anything to the discussion, other then accusing other people of being trolls.  Go away.
I don't get it. JRoweSkeptic is on this thread pushing DEF (FE model - what does it have to do with globes?). When I ask how DEF knows the 2 hemidisks are not 2 semi-globes (this is thread is about globes isn't it?) then I am trolling and not contributing anything? jroa, you should really read what this thread is about.

You don't get a lot of things.  That is not our deficiency; it is yours. 
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: EternalHoid on December 25, 2015, 02:42:18 PM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.
Quote
even a method of making a map of the planet
...You are aware cartography exists, right?
Are you aware of what cartography shows.
Cartography is based of making triangles over large distances. So making a triangle large enough to see the angles is pracatical. And maps for large distances make using cartography show the earth is round, and navigation is needs to count for the curve when traveling last distances. So are all the cartographers and navigators on ships and planes lying.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 25, 2015, 03:24:48 PM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.
Quote
even a method of making a map of the planet
...You are aware cartography exists, right?
Are you aware of what cartography shows.
Cartography is based of making triangles over large distances. So making a triangle large enough to see the angles is pracatical. And maps for large distances make using cartography show the earth is round, and navigation is needs to count for the curve when traveling last distances. So are all the cartographers and navigators on ships and planes lying.

Yes!!! They are ALL lying. ::)
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: EternalHoid on December 26, 2015, 03:00:51 PM
 Now that it looks like Jrow had gone, I give my points why the normal FET doesn't work,
1. Foucault pendulum.
2. Coriolis effect.
3. Stars in the southern hemisphere.
4. Celestial sphere http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65251.0#.Vn-_KRmnwj0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65251.0#.Vn-_KRmnwj0)
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 26, 2015, 06:04:49 PM
Now that it looks like Jrow had gone, I give my points why the normal FET doesn't work,
1. Foucault pendulum.
2. Coriolis effect.
3. Stars in the southern hemisphere.

I almost want to celebrate Jroweskepic leaving, but then I get a sinking feeling that he'll be back. I mean, where else is he's going to go? There's only two active flat earth forums and his forum is completely dead.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: EternalHoid on December 27, 2015, 02:16:13 AM
To be save you could copy and paste some of the anti DET threads to his forum,  those ones about the moon look good.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: C PIckering on December 27, 2015, 10:52:21 AM
Poko well written but I would dispute facts
1 Perspective appears to pull a ship into the ground no curvature. From England on a clear day at ground level you can see the coast of France 22 miles away no curvature.Name any experiment that proves a curvature to water.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: C PIckering on December 27, 2015, 11:02:13 AM
5 the pole star remains central in any time lapse photography,however the rest of the stars circle around meaning we are in a fixed position.this could not be done on a revolving planet. I'm not saying the earth is flat but those two points I believe help  FE furthermore with simple  experiments that can be done by yourself and not a NASA scientist.

Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: inquisitive on December 27, 2015, 11:05:05 AM
Poko well written but I would dispute facts
1 Perspective appears to pull a ship into the ground no curvature. From England on a clear day at ground level you can see the coast of France 22 miles away no curvature.Name any experiment that proves a curvature to water.
How much curvature would you expect to see based on the radius of the round earth?
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: C PIckering on December 27, 2015, 11:13:54 AM
9 Disputed according to gobe theorist a wight measure on the equator measures o.3 percent less on the North Pole proof give a fixed weight and some scales it alters at all. As the further you go to the poles the less the object should way due to centrifugal force.A wagon that weighs three tons in California will way three tones in Iceland.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: EternalHoid on December 27, 2015, 11:14:53 AM
5 the pole star remains central in any time lapse photography,however the rest of the stars circle around meaning we are in a fixed position.this could not be done on a revolving planet. I'm not saying the earth is flat but those two points I believe help  FE furthermore with simple  experiments that can be done by yourself and not a NASA scientist.
The earths spin causes the movement in time lapse images, the north star happens to be above the north poll so of cause it would stay still, time lapses in the southern hemisphere disprove FE, because you can be the stars revolving around a point at the south poll, which shouldn't exist in FET
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: Brouwer on December 27, 2015, 11:36:38 AM
5 the pole star remains central in any time lapse photography,however the rest of the stars circle around meaning we are in a fixed position.this could not be done on a revolving planet. I'm not saying the earth is flat but those two points I believe help  FE furthermore with simple  experiments that can be done by yourself and not a NASA scientist.
The earths spin causes the movement in time lapse images, the north star happens to be above the north poll so of cause it would stay still, time lapses in the southern hemisphere disprove FE, because you can be the stars revolving around a point at the south poll, which shouldn't exist in FET
Small fix: North Star also revolves around the north pole. This is a common error...

9 Disputed according to gobe theorist a wight measure on the equator measures o.3 percent less on the North Pole proof give a fixed weight and some scales it alters at all. As the further you go to the poles the less the object should way due to centrifugal force.A wagon that weighs three tons in California will way three tones in Iceland.
Quote
The centrifugal acceleration on the equator is
v2 / r = (465.1)2 / 6378000 = 216318 / 6378000 = 0,03392 m/s2
Comparing this to the acceleration of gravity--say 9.81 m/s2--it is only 0.00346 or 0.346%. Effective gravity on the equator is reduced by the rotation, but only by about 1/3 of a percent
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: frenat on December 27, 2015, 12:47:26 PM
5 the pole star remains central in any time lapse photography,however the rest of the stars circle around meaning we are in a fixed position.this could not be done on a revolving planet. I'm not saying the earth is flat but those two points I believe help  FE furthermore with simple  experiments that can be done by yourself and not a NASA scientist.
Wrong.  Because of the fact that it also rotates in the South it could ONLY be done on a rotating planet.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: C PIckering on December 27, 2015, 02:29:18 PM
Curvature of global earth is agreed at 1 mile is 8 inches that isn't what I've worked out but it is agreed by both sides so 22 miles x8 inch
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: inquisitive on December 27, 2015, 02:34:02 PM
Curvature of global earth is agreed at 1 mile is 8 inches that isn't what I've worked out but it is agreed by both sides so 22 miles x8 inch
Not that simple.
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: getrealzommb on December 27, 2015, 03:05:24 PM
Curvature of global earth is agreed at 1 mile is 8 inches that isn't what I've worked out but it is agreed by both sides so 22 miles x8 inch

Wrong, yes its 8 inches for the first mile, but after that this must be used.

x^2 + (y+R)^2 = R^2

Equivalently, x^2 + y^2 +2Ry = 0     

Equivalently, y = - (x^2 + y^2)/2R

[Note: The notation "x^2" means "x squared"]
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: rabinoz on December 27, 2015, 06:03:35 PM
9 Disputed according to gobe theorist a wight measure on the equator measures o.3 percent less on the North Pole proof give a fixed weight and some scales it alters at all. As the further you go to the poles the less the object should way due to centrifugal force.A wagon that weighs three tons in California will way three tones in Iceland.
I find it hard translating, but I guess you mean "according to globe theorist a weight measured on the equator measures 0.3 percent less on the North Pole".  You are backwards fo a start, but:
A wagon with a mass of three tonnes (ie 3,000 kg) in California will have a mass of three tonnes in Iceland.
But a wagon that weighs three tonnes at the equator will about 10 kg MORE at the north pole.
We are talking about weight change NOT mass change - there is a big difference.
And you stating otherwise does not change anything!
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: ergovivo on December 28, 2015, 10:32:31 AM
Saying weight and mass are different? That sounds like physics, which isn't true for reasons!
Title: Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
Post by: rabinoz on December 28, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Saying weight and mass are different? That sounds like physics, which isn't true for reasons!
Yes, but it is a bit hard to leave physics out (of course English might be a start) when trying to explain:
"Disputed according to gobe(sic) theorist a wight(sic) measure(sic) on the equator measures o.3(sic) percent less on the North Pole(wrong) proof give a fixed weight and some scales it alters at all. As the further you go to the poles the less the object should way(sicker) due to centrifugal force(wrong).A wagon that weighs three tons in California will way(sic) three tones(sic) in Iceland?"
You do see my problem!  I just hope I don't have too many typos - of coarse wee al make sum misteaks sumtimes.