1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk: Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?

« on: April 28, 2016, 01:36:14 PM »

My sixth graders were able to grasp all these ideas pretty easily. Some basic facts first.

Evaporation is not the same boiling. Evaporation is controlled by both temperature and pressure. Essentially the air has some space for the water molecules and those that gain enough energy leave the water’s surface and enter the air. Some actually collide with the various gas molecules in the air and bounce back into the water, however most will remain in the air.

Condensation is controlled almost entirely by temperature and to a much lesser extent pressure.

Relative humidity is the amount of gaseous water in the air relative to the amount the atmosphere can hold at that temperature and pressure.

Gaseous water is invisible whilst liquid water is visible.

I think that is all we need. Now to explain this all for you. I will hit it point by point then explicate what I think needs it afterwards.

1- Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?


Yes, a great deal of the gaseous water in the atmosphere does come from evaporation over the oceans. Not all by any means, but a large majority does. I would wager on the average day over time the majority of cloud cover is over the oceans. The world is large, the oceans cover 70% of it. Just because you do not see clouds over your local ocean view does not equate to, “there are no clouds over the oceans.”

As mentioned above gaseous water is invisible. So although you might not directly observe it there may be a great deal of moisture in the air. I used to live at the ocean in NJ. It could be 98% humidity at the beach and not a cloud in the sky. Because it was all still in gaseous form.

Clouds form from pockets of lower pressure or temperature. Small dust particles in the air are seeds for liquid water to condense onto and to ultimately become clouds. We can see clouds because they are made up of liquid water, not gaseous water. How are they able to remain aloft? Buoyancy.  They are floating in the air. Eventually parts of the cloud do become too heavy to float and fall to the ground as rain drops.

2- Sometimes a cloudy day it's not raining and sometimes it's raining with a few clouds on a sunny day. These cases show us the clouds aren't the exact cause for occuring the rain.

Clouds are often the main source of rain. Clouds can remain aloft as long as the drops of water in them, and often small ice particles, stay small enough. So not all clouds will produce rain. As temperature drops or pressure, or both, more gaseous water condenses out of the air to become liquid water, the drops grow in size and finally fall. Are clouds necessary for rain? No. Let’s imagine it is 100% humidity outside. And like a NJ summer there is not a cloud in the sky, the water is still all gaseous. If there is a small decrease in temp, pressure, or both the relative humidity will rise to over 100% and the water must condense out. You will get rain without a cloud in the sky. Usually not much but I have experienced this a few times. Conversely the sky can be covered in thick dark clouds but have no rain. 

3- We must see the clouds on the oceans on every day in summer because it such as boiling pans. But we don't ! And sunny days the air in the ocean usually open like the lands.

I think you mean on hot days we should see a great deal of clouds over the oceans. See above. Local conditions, relative humidity etc.

4- We must see the clouds usually moving from oceans and seas to lands but this situation does not usually occur. Clous move random.

Clouds do not move completely randomly.  There are jet streams, pressure differentials and other factors that steer them.


Temperature determines cloud coverage much more than pressure. I could show you a gif that is over a ten year period and shows cloud coverage and humidity over the northern and southern hemispheres. You would see that in the winter there is much less cloud coverage and humidity, while during summer much more. But I do not know how to just place a gif in my response and I am not making an imugr account to do so.

Please stop trolling, it's not funny and it gets really annoying.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lets start basic

« on: April 28, 2016, 01:32:16 PM »

How does GPS work? Stratellites, look 'em up lol

Why do you thing earth is a flat disc when larger planets are round? This question is biased toward the RE belief that Earth is in the same class of objects as the other planets we see in the sky. (It's not, from the FE point of view). I'm pretty sure that the planets are just other objects that orbit Earth just as the Sun and Moon do, but I also find another theory plausible: basically, there are objects trapped in the ice of the Ice Wall, and when sunlight hits these objects, the images of these objects reflect back up, and then reflect off of the sky, and thus we see these as "planets".


What would NASA have to gain from lying? Pretending to go to space is a lot less expensive than actually doing it. Not that "space", in the classical sense, actually exists.


Why is the end of our eye sight blue like the atmosphere? I don't quite understand this question, could you please rephrase it?

Stratellites don't orbit at several kilometers per second. 

We can see tidal effects on other planets just like with the earth and the moon.  Most moons are tidally locked, like ours.  Therefore, it is logical that our planet is not drastically different from the others. 

Most of NASA's budget is awarded to contractors.  Are these contractors in on the hoax too?  NASA does not have direct control over them, so why would they be entrusted with such sensitive information?  How could they keep this up for as long as they have?

The horizon fades due to scattering.  You can see from a plane that there is no defined edge.  This is also visible from orbit. 

Obviously stratellites don't orbit, I'm not sure what your point is here.

Again, you're biased toward the round-earth idea that Earth is a "planet" in the same way that, say, Mars is a "planet". They're not even in the same class of object.

By contractors, I assume you mean the people who supply the materials they need and build things for them. Why would they need to be in on it?

This point is, again, biased toward RE.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lets start basic

« on: April 27, 2016, 09:38:54 PM »

How does GPS work? Stratellites, look 'em up lol

Why do you thing earth is a flat disc when larger planets are round? This question is biased toward the RE belief that Earth is in the same class of objects as the other planets we see in the sky. (It's not, from the FE point of view). I'm pretty sure that the planets are just other objects that orbit Earth just as the Sun and Moon do, but I also find another theory plausible: basically, there are objects trapped in the ice of the Ice Wall, and when sunlight hits these objects, the images of these objects reflect back up, and then reflect off of the sky, and thus we see these as "planets".


What would NASA have to gain from lying? Pretending to go to space is a lot less expensive than actually doing it. Not that "space", in the classical sense, actually exists.


Why is the end of our eye sight blue like the atmosphere? I don't quite understand this question, could you please rephrase it?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth the ONLY flat astronomical object?

« on: February 24, 2016, 08:04:28 PM »

Earth is not an "astronomical object" in the same class as these other planets. My guess would be that if these planets truly exist, they circle the Earth just as the Sun and the Moon do. However, I do believe that they are simply mirages caused by sunlight reflecting off of the Earth's ice and hitting the "sky-sphere", as you might call it, and then reflecting back down.

What evidence you have for that? Why can we see great serials about some of the planets if they are mirages? If the earth is flat the explain the video I gave.

LOL videos can be faked can't they? I've seen plenty of amateur videos from the edge of space that quite obviously show no curve whatsoever. As for the planets, forgive me, I misspoke earlier. I didn't mean that the Sun reflects off of the Ice Wall and hits the sky, I meant that there are probably objects trapped in the ice wall, and the Sun's light hits them and bounces back up to the sky, and the objects happen to look like so-called "astronomical objects". Wouldn't surprise me if the whole sky is just a mirage caused by this reflection.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica is in fact a continent; Go and see it!

« on: February 24, 2016, 08:00:38 PM »

Antarctica, is simply a flat ring around the edge of the Earth, rather than a continent. Please examine some flat Earth maps. The reason that it appears to be a landmass is simply that compasses and other such navigational equipment tends to fail near the edge.

Now you do have a trace of evidence for that! For a start the South Magnetic Pole is not even inside the Antarctic Circle.
Then, wonder of wonders, before GPS and even now magnetic compasses are used for navigation in Anrarctica!
Just look at this:

from: http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/mawson/this-week-at-mawson/2013/1-november-2013/2
This week at Mawson: 1 November 2013
In the days before Global Positioning Satellites, or GPS, were invented, land navigation in Antarctica was a real challenge. Magnetic compasses, sun compasses, sextants, and dead reckoning were all used by the Antarctic traveller, but each method had its own unique drawbacks. Even modern day GPS can have problems. Coverage at the higher latitudes is limited to certain, yet predictable, hours of the day. At times, accuracy is diminished by the low incident angles of the satellites to the horizon.

Magnetic compasses must be modified for use in high polar latitudes by re-weighting the needle. As the compass gets closer to the South (magnetic[1]) Pole, the south-seeking end of the needle is pulled downward toward the earth and will drag on its enclosure unless the proper non-magnetic counterweight (copper wire) is added to the north-seeking end.

The worst region for the use of the magnetic compass is south of South Australia, just outside the Antarctic Circle.

What about the numerous people that have been right to the South Pole, from Amundsen and Scott on. You believe Rowbotham in a publication in 1885 more than all the more recent evidence - completely unconnected with space or NASA - there weren't around until October 1, 1958!

If you claim to "Embrace Phys Reality", what about the dimensions of the earth?
Equator to North Pole = 10,000 km (very close)
Distance around Equator = 40,000 km (very close)

Please try to fit those bits of Physical Reality onto a flat surface! - just won't go - bit of a square peg/round hole problem!

[1] I added magnetic - not that it matters to us.

I don't believe you have a source for those measurements and information besides what the global elite tells everyone 

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I know what's on the other side of the Ice Wall

« on: February 24, 2016, 05:48:21 PM »

Based on research, that we have conducted in the past, it appears that the (flat) Earth's magnetic poles cause compasses and navigational equipment to go haywire, thus leading explorers to move around the rim of the Ice Wall, this causeing them to believe that they are actually on a continent, but their Round Earth conditioning causeing them to believe it. Hope that helped

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat earth. What is ouside of it then ?

« on: February 24, 2016, 05:44:15 PM »

Some theorize, that the flat Earth is actually infinite and the Ice Wall blocks us off from the other continents. Some say that, the Ice Wall itself is infinite, and still others, theorizes that beyond the Ice Wall lies some etheric realm. Who can know for sure the true complexities of Flat Earth Theory with NASA blocking every one of our attempts at research? 

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica is in fact a continent; Go and see it!

« on: February 24, 2016, 05:36:00 PM »

Antarctica, is simply a flat ring around the edge of the Earth, rather than a continent. Please examine some flat Earth maps. The reason that it appears to be a landmass is simply that compasses and other such navigational equipment tends to fail near the edge.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth the ONLY flat astronomical object?

« on: February 24, 2016, 05:34:07 PM »

Earth is not an "astronomical object" in the same class as these other planets. My guess would be that if these planets truly exist, they circle the Earth just as the Sun and the Moon do. However, I do believe that they are simply mirages caused by sunlight reflecting off of the Earth's ice and hitting the "sky-sphere", as you might call it, and then reflecting back down.

10

Suggestions & Concerns / How does one formally join the Flat Earth Society?

« on: February 23, 2016, 09:49:42 PM »

Is there a formal membership process, or am I automatically considered a member by wanting to be and posting on these forums?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

« on: April 28, 2015, 07:33:12 PM »

Please post your calculations and analysis.

I did it by hand. As I said, it was a couple of nights ago, and I misplaced them. I'll try to find them and post what I did.

Have you found those notes yet? Simulating an asteroid impact is normally a job for supercomputers, so I am quite interested to see how you did these calculations with pencil and paper.  Why don't you start by explaining the approach you used.

Didn't find them, but I obviously used calculations taken from those very same supercomputers 

I didn't calculate the impact by hand. I plugged in the numbers that I found for the impact and found that the end result made no sense.

What are the "numbers that [you] found for the impact"?  Where did you find those numbers, and can you post them?

Online. I don't have the exact sources, but a few minutes of Google searching should lead you to them. I remember using the estimated force of the impact, the estimated period of time that it took for the dinosaurs to die off, and the estimated energy release of the impact.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

« on: April 28, 2015, 06:46:43 PM »

Please post your calculations and analysis.

I did it by hand. As I said, it was a couple of nights ago, and I misplaced them. I'll try to find them and post what I did.

Have you found those notes yet? Simulating an asteroid impact is normally a job for supercomputers, so I am quite interested to see how you did these calculations with pencil and paper.  Why don't you start by explaining the approach you used.

Didn't find them, but I obviously used calculations taken from those very same supercomputers 

I didn't calculate the impact by hand. I plugged in the numbers that I found for the impact and found that the end result made no sense.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

« on: April 28, 2015, 06:45:20 PM »

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect due to an over abundance of carbon dioxide which allows energy from the sun into its atmosphere but prevents it from escaping. A massive impact on earth would throw up debris and completely blot out the sun, cooling it substantially. Not at all the same thing as Venus.

Your model is biased towards gravity. Any debris would quickly have been caught in an aetheric whirlpool and swept away.

Why would the Spherical Earth not be biased towards gravity? 

Also in response to your response to Donald's temperature change:
Why do you think that the spherical Earth did not absorb the impact, he showed you there was no huge difference in tilt, rotation, or orbital revolution of the Earth in response to the impact.  So yes it did absorb the impact.  The surface material of the Earth, i.e. dirt and rock, however was almost vaporized (meaning much of it was blasted into particulate matter) and launched into the atmosphere blocking the sun.  This cooled the Earth due to less of the energy from the sun reaching the surface of the Earth. 
So what is you problem with the explanation of how this happened anyway?

The problem is, it should have either absorbed the impact completely, without causing any damage, or superheated the atmosphere for several millennia.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

« on: April 28, 2015, 05:44:42 PM »

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect due to an over abundance of carbon dioxide which allows energy from the sun into its atmosphere but prevents it from escaping. A massive impact on earth would throw up debris and completely blot out the sun, cooling it substantially. Not at all the same thing as Venus.

Your model is biased towards gravity. Any debris would quickly have been caught in an aetheric whirlpool and swept away.

Well, yes, of course it is. Your original argument was based on the Round Earth model. There is no aetheric whirpool in the RE model. Did you forget what we were talking about?

Did you? I'm arguing that, in a Round Earth, the excess energy from the impact would be trapped in the atmosphere in the form of heat for millennia. Your model is still biased.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

« on: April 28, 2015, 06:48:44 AM »

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Indeed, please let me see your calculations for this idea. Also cooling is heavily related to surface area so heat dissipating from the entire surface of the globe would be radiated much more quickly than that of a small ring from the edge of a disc. It would of course also radiate from the top surface of the disk and bottom.

Here is some info about the impact.
Estimated Chicxulub Parameters:

Projectile diameter: 12.00 km ( = 7.45 miles )
Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m^3
Impact Velocity: 20.00 km per second ( = 12.40 miles per second )
Impact Angle: 90 degrees
Target Density: 2700 kg/m^3
Target Type: Liquid water of depth 500.0 meters ( = 1640.0 feet ), over crystalline rock.
Energy: Energy before atmospheric entry: 5.43 x 10^23 Joules = 1.30 x 10^8 MegaTons TNT
The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth during the last 4 billion years is 1.0 x 108years
Major Global Changes: The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.
(from http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/Chicxulub.html)

That is a lot of energy. But super heating? Lets see what effect it would have had on ocean temperature. We will assume the energy was quickly evenly distributed across the entire ocean mass. Just to give us a quick back of the envelope idea.

A calorie is the energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 Kelvin or degree Celsius at 1 atmosphere.
1 calorie = 4.2 Joule    so calories were 5.43 x 10^23 joules/4.2 = 1.293 x 10^23 calories
Total ocean mass of Earths oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg = 1.4 x 10^24 grams

So  calories/mass = temp change

1.293 x 10^23 calories / 1.4 x 10^24 grams = 0.0924 degree temperature change.
Not even a degree! What was the main problem was all of the material thrown up into the atmosphere, and of course the devastation near the impact.  In 1816 there was essentially no summer as a result of the 1815 eruption of  Mount Tambora. This event had substantially less energy and was still able to wreak havoc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora)

There is still a great deal of debate as to whether this event was the cause, was a co-cause, or just a coincident of the extinction. But the evidence for it having occurred is substantial.

No, Round Earth would have absorbed it.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

« on: April 28, 2015, 06:46:14 AM »

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect due to an over abundance of carbon dioxide which allows energy from the sun into its atmosphere but prevents it from escaping. A massive impact on earth would throw up debris and completely blot out the sun, cooling it substantially. Not at all the same thing as Venus.

Your model is biased towards gravity. Any debris would quickly have been caught in an aetheric whirlpool and swept away.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

« on: April 27, 2015, 09:30:36 PM »

Who says they went extinct,   I see plenty of surviving dinosaurs.    Happily flapping their wings.

You know what I mean. Also, scientists are beginning to doubt that birds are even descended from dinosaurs. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1192019/Why-birds-NOT-descended-dinosaurs.html

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

« on: April 27, 2015, 08:13:11 PM »

Um, the asteroid threw up a large amount debris. This caused severe and quick cooling of the Earth.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event

Effects of impact[edit]
Such an impact would have inhibited photosynthesis by creating a dust cloud that blocked sunlight for up to a year, and by injecting sulfuric acid aerosols into the stratosphere, which might have reduced sunlight reaching the Earth's surface by 10–20%. It has been argued that it would take at least ten years for such aerosols to dissipate, which would account for the extinction of plants and phytoplankton, and of organisms dependent on them (including predatory animals as well as herbivores). Small creatures whose food chains were based on detritus would have a reasonable chance of survival.[80][96] The consequences of reentry of ejecta into Earth's atmosphere would include a brief (hours long) but intense pulse of infrared radiation, killing exposed organisms.[50] Global firestorms likely resulted from the heat pulse and the fall back to Earth of incendiary fragments from the blast. Recent research indicates that the global debris layer deposited by the impact contained enough soot to suggest that the entire terrestrial biosphere had burned.[114] The high O
2 levels during the late Cretaceous would have supported intense combustion. The level of atmospheric O
2 plummeted in the early Cenozoic era. If widespread fires occurred, they would have increased the CO
2 content of the atmosphere and caused a temporary greenhouse effect once the dust cloud settled, and this would have exterminated the most vulnerable organisms that survived the period immediately after the impact.[115]
The impact may also have produced acid rain, depending on what type of rock the asteroid struck. However, recent research suggests this effect was relatively minor, lasting for approximately 12 years.[96] The acidity was neutralized by the environment, and the survival of animals vulnerable to acid rain effects (such as frogs) indicate this was not a major contributor to extinction. Impact theories can only explain very rapid extinctions, since the dust clouds and possible sulfuric aerosols would wash out of the atmosphere in a fairly short time—possibly within 10 years.[116]
The shape and location of the crater indicate further causes of devastation in addition to the dust cloud. The asteroid landed in the ocean and would have caused megatsunamis, for which evidence has been found in several locations in the Caribbean and eastern United States—marine sand in locations that were then inland, and vegetation debris and terrestrial rocks in marine sediments dated to the time of the impact. The asteroid landed in a bed of gypsum (calcium sulfate), which would have produced a vast sulfur dioxide aerosol. This would have further reduced the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface and then precipitated as acid rain, killing vegetation, plankton, and organisms that build shells from calcium carbonate (coccolithophores and molluscs). In February 2008, a team of researchers used seismic images of the crater to determine that the impactor landed in deeper water than was previously assumed. They argued that this would have resulted in increased sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, which could have made the impact deadlier by altering climate and by generating acid rain.[117]
Most paleontologists now agree that an asteroid did hit the Earth at approximately the end of the Cretaceous, but there is an ongoing dispute whether the impact was the sole cause of the extinctions.[36][118] There is evidence that there was an interval of about 300 ka from the impact to the mass extinction.[119] In 1997, paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee drew attention to the proposed and much larger 600 km (370 mi) Shiva crater and the possibility of a multiple-impact scenario.
In March 2010 an international panel of scientists endorsed the asteroid hypothesis, specifically the Chicxulub impact, as being the cause of the extinction. A team of 41 scientists reviewed 20 years of scientific literature and in so doing also ruled out other theories such as massive volcanism. They had determined that a 10-to-15-kilometre (6.2 to 9.3 mi) space rock hurtled into Earth at Chicxulub on Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula. The collision would have released the same energy as 100 teratonnes of TNT (420 ZJ), over a billion times the energy of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[7]

Severe cooling? Don't make me laugh. An impact with that much energy on a Round Earth would superheat the planet for millennia. It would get trapped in the atmosphere. Look at Venus, for example. A Flat Earth, however, would allow the heat to escape much more quickly, out the sides.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

« on: April 27, 2015, 08:12:06 PM »

Please post your calculations and analysis.

I did it by hand. As I said, it was a couple of nights ago, and I misplaced them. I'll try to find them and post what I did.

20

Flat Earth Debate / The dinosaurs could not have gone extinct if earth was round

« on: April 27, 2015, 06:30:36 PM »

It just doesn't make sense. Consider the gravitational constant, 6.673×10−11 N·(m/kg)2. Now consider that the meteor that killed the dinosaurs was estimated to hit with the force of 100 million megatons. Obviously, modern scientists can't be trusted, since they're lying to us about the Earth's shape, but if we assume that they're telling the truth and right about all their calculations, the math still doesn't check out. I ran some numbers a couple nights ago and figured out that an Earth as thick and round as Round Earthers claim should have easily absorbed an asteroid impact like that. In fact, the kinetic force should have transferred to the supposed hot core and slowed down continental drift to the point that Pangea wouldn't have broken up.

On a Flat Earth, however, the force would be about as devastating as needed to exterminate the dinosaurs. Please leave thoughts and comments below

P.S. I've believed in FET for a long time, and lurked here, but I never had need to post. Now I've finally decided that I want to jump in.