1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curved lines can look straight

« on: July 06, 2019, 11:39:10 AM »

You are very nice Heavenly. Much nicer than most here. However, I'm not afraid of the aize of Earth, or falling off. I was using a bit science, and some sarcasm (which I would have been a bit nicer about it if i jad known yoi were going to answer), to get my point across. The Earth can appear whatever it wants. At the end of the day, it is an oblait spheroid.

Thank you for the kindness though. It was a nice change from the usual drivel I get here.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Curved lines can look straight

« on: July 05, 2019, 11:36:33 PM »

The Pantheon.

Okay here's a bit more: the Pantheon, when viewed from a distance, looks perfectly straight. The floor, the steps, the columns. However, when viewed up close, the proportions begis to change. The floor takes a bowed up appearance, as do the steps. The columns look bowed around the center. But they are straight! No. They aren't. The Greeks actually built the Pantheon, along with other buildings, like this. A perfectly flat line appears almost bowed down, or sagging, from a distance. To counter this, the Greeks built buildings, at least important ones, with a bowed shape. How is this relevant. Take a flat line. Any old flat line... Oh! The horizon! It.... Oh wait.... From sea level, it looks flat. Now, the only way to get a flat line is to.have a curved shape... Oh but it has to be flat right? Oh... Oh dear... From even a few thousand feet up, as your prospective changes, and you get further from the globe, you begin to see the curve, slight though it may be. The further up you go... It more it curves. Well. This ended poorly. I really thought I had a flat earth proof. All well. At least the hyper accurate gyroscope experiment didnt show a 15 degree drift........ Oh.......

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I researched how GPS works

« on: July 05, 2019, 11:23:26 PM »

I didn't read all the comments so forgive me if this has been covered but: ground based GPS signals wojld also have to be strong enough to reach aircraft at flight altitude, while calculating speed, altitude, and (in some cases anyway) weather. There is a system called ForeFlight that handles all that. I use it in my aircraft. This would need to tie ground based signals (radar), and weather stations from all over to paint an accurate map. While we do have ground based weather stations, more accurate wide field weather comes from satellites in orbit. Ground based stations are good for a local area. For an aircraft in flight, this would mean every weather station would have to be tied together, the information compiled, sent to the aircraft along with triangulation for position using radar, and radio receivers. All in a moments notice, because its going to change quickly. That, or a few satellites parked overhead that can see every thing, do the same thing.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 25, 2019, 11:25:31 AM »

Neither FET nor RET is easy to explain, beyond "The Earth is roughly flat" or "The Earth is approximately spherical."

No, you can go a lot further, at least with round Earth.
For example:
The sun appears to set because it's relative position puts Earth itself in the way.
Objects going over the horizon disappear from the bottom up because of Earth obstructing the view.
The moon's phases are based upon the moon being illuminated by the sun and its relative positioning resulting in us seeing a different amount of lit/unlit.
Day and night is caused by the rotation of Earth with the sun illuminating roughly half of Earth.
The seasons are caused by Earth's axial tilt, combined with its orbit, making the sun appear to trace a path on the celestial sphere.
The different apparent position of celestial objects is primarily due to the different orientation of Earth. For example, Polaris, situated roughly above the north pole, is visible at an angle of elevation equal to your latitude, and is not visible significantly below the equator as Earth gets in the way (taking the latitude here to be negative).
There are 2 celestial poles because the axis of rotation of Earth goes through the celestial sphere at 2 points. These are always 180 degrees apart because they are 2 points on a straight line they are so far from Earth they may as well be infinitely far away.
People fall to Earth, and the planets all orbit for the same reason of gravity with masses being attracted to other masses. We fall to Earth because it is the most significant mass near us, and all the planets orbit the sun because it is the most significant mass near them.
Photos from space show Earth is round because Earth is round.
Earth can be circumnavigated in any direction because Earth is round.

And so on.

There is plenty that can easily be explained for a RE.
None of that applies for a FE.
FE needs numerous contradictory models to even begin to explain it and plenty of their so called "explanations" will contradict the "evidence" they provide to support a FE.

^ This. Thanks Jack! I couldn't have said it better.

Again though, for the FErs: I want a picture of the sun over Tokyo, while it is night in NY, from NY. On a flat earth, this is possible. On a round earth, it is not.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 23, 2019, 07:40:11 AM »

Hi Wulfe,

Thread title would be better if just something like “why flat earth perspective argument is nonsense”

I don’t think you’ll find any defenders of all that here though. The few genuine flat earthers round here don’t generally seem to like getting into conversations that try pin down how it’s all supposed to work anyway, with a couple exceptions.

The best you can usually expect on bringing up any specific flat earth argument is:
“Why do you assume we think that?”
“This has all been covered before. Search the website”

Closely followed by:

“Why haven’t so called scientists worked out a unified theory of quantum gravity?  They don’t even know what gravity is!”

I know. If a Flat Earther was to ask me how the Heliocentric model works, and pin me down to it, I'd be able to tell them, as any Round Earther would. However, the opposite isn't true. A Flat Earther doesn't like to get pinned down, and those that do, can vary widely from one to the next, on how it all works. As for the title, if what I've asked can't be done, that has to prove a Round Earth. In all my time, I've never once seen anyone give any reason, other than the camera, as to why you can't go.indefinitely, when zooming in on a ship. We have telescopes that will see millions of miles, pointing one at the horizon shouldn't be an issue. Thanks for the advice none the less friend.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 23, 2019, 02:19:54 AM »

You clearly didn't read what i put.

I bloody well did because you said..

i would even accept a sun over London

You're really going to have to be more thorough with your arguments if you want FEs to respond to you here.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe the earth to be flat anymore than I believe that you have more than half a brain.

Yeap. "I would even accept." There was more to that. But you're right. That was a bit silly to suggest. So, I would like a picture of the sun over Tokyo, from NY. Its a very simple request. I never have understood why someone needs to use alot of typing to get a point across. It's a simple test. Now, if the Flat Earthers can't do it, I think that is fair evidence in my favour. If you can do it with a camera and a ship, surely something as large and bright as the sun shouldn't be an issue? Right?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 22, 2019, 11:21:33 PM »

I will say this again: Prove the Earth is flat, by taking a picture of the sun from NY, while it is over London. So far, I'm getting alot of "Well your arguments weak.

So if the sun is "over London" it must be 12 noon, which would make it 7am in New York, which is well past sunrise in the summer.

Your argument is definitely weak!

You haven't really thought this through have you?

I have. You clearly didn't read what i put. London is my second option. My first is over Japan. So, since you don't like London, and the one which you would have had an easier time proving me wrong, I might add, we'll go with Japan. Tokyo, from NY City. Shouldn't be too hard either. Flat is flat after all. So. Where is my picture of the sun over Tokyo?

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 22, 2019, 10:15:43 PM »

@SirWulfe:

Your arguments are a series of logical fallacies. First, you ask a question that presumes a round Earth, when you begin "If a ship goes below the horizon..." Since there is no "below the horizon" on a flat Earth, your question is very much like the old joke question that asks "Have you quit beating your wife yet? Yes or No!"

Then you go on to quote some FEers from YouTube and you imply that they are the arbiters of flat-Earth theory. Flat Earth is one thing and one thing only: It is the viewpoint that says that the Earth is flat. There is no official spokesperson or arbiter. There is not just one FET, there are many. FET is not disproven just because you might catch one YouTuber in a mistake. Frankly, a lot of YouTubers are kind of wacky, and I wouldn't put much faith in them, and as far as I know, none of them represents FE as I (imperfectly) understand it. OTOH there are some really cute cat videos there, so YT is not all bad.

None of this is new. You might want to look around at the arguments that have already been made, to assist you in crafting original arguments.

When I say below the horizon, I'm actually quoting FE, who use that as part of their argument. "You see a ship go below the horizon, but when you zoom in, you bring it back over again. Means it doesn't go below." As for the rest, believe it or not, I read the comments made by Flat Earthers. Right here, on this website. So many view so many different things, such as what I've given above. Then again, this is all irrelevant.

I will say this again: Prove the Earth is flat, by taking a picture of the sun from NY, while it is over London. So far, I'm getting alot of "Well your arguments weak. Heres why..." No. No it isn't. The task is simple. You can do it with a boat, there is no reason you can't do it with the sun.

Lastly, you do realise, you yourself just proved me right? Not sure if you caught that...

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 22, 2019, 04:35:13 PM »

By your own admission, your questions don't actually allow you to distinguish between either outcome. It's about as valid as those "proofs" that 1=0 using division by zero as a "proof."

No, not exactly. If you read it, there is actually a fool proof way to show the Earth is flat. However, seeing as that proof is nowhere to be found, then there is only one conclusion: the Earth is round. When there are two possibilities, and one cannot be proved, that leaves one. Now, the Flat Earthers show proof. Okay, Round Earthers dispute it. Round Earthers show proof, Flat Earthers dispute it. Take a picture of the sun over London, from New York, say in the coast. You can't on a Round Earth. You can on a Flat Earth. If you can do it with a ship, then doing it with the sun should be no issue whatsoever. In fact, make it a video showing the time where you are in New York, and then zooming to the sun over London. That is even more concrete, is it not? Without that, well, we are left with all the other evidence. Seeing as the Round Earthers have a single unified theory that works, and Flat Earthers have everything from an infinite plain, to a dome, to a holographic moon running figure eights with the sun...

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 22, 2019, 04:25:51 PM »

Again . Your argument is weak.
"If a ship goes below the horizon" : You are stating the earth is a globe.
The second question doesn't even make sense ;  You ask about "two points", you probably mean to lines.

I am not a flatard, but I believe one of the reasons the whole flat earth movement persists is they face a lot of very weak arguments like yours.
Too often in the discussions you will see too many people trying to have their say and the flat earthers will cherry pick the weak or often incorrect responses to reply to. This allows them to stay in the debate(for want of a better word) and appear to have the upper hand.

I said points, this is true. I did it on purpose. I quoted several Flat Earthers on YouTube to see the reaction. In fact, the second question isn't that needed to prove my point. No, I simply added it to see how people would respond. As for the first, I think it's fairly sound. Even Flat Earthers say the ship appears to go below the horizon, but it actually isn't. That is the basis for my argument. If you can bring a ship back into focus, the sun should be no issue.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 22, 2019, 09:40:32 AM »

Two days and still now counter? Let me guess "We won't argue against such nonsense." Oh that's fine. Really I'm only replying to keep this thread from disappearing.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 20, 2019, 07:40:28 AM »

Right. Well before this goes too far, I think I'll go ahead from here:

1: yes
2: yes

Well, taking both of these together, then it would be very simple, when the sun is on the other side of the disk, to simply zoom in on it and see it. After all, if you can do it with a ship on the horizon at sea level, from sea level, then it should be very easy to do with the sun. A flat plain is a flat plain after all. And seeing as no one has done that, it must mean you can't? In fact. Not once have I ever even heard a Flat Earther mention being able to do it.

1:no
2:no

Then, the Earth is round.

1:yes
2:no
Then you have it half right. Two parallel lines will never actually converge, but this also means you should be able to bring the sun back into focus

1:no
2:yes
Then the sun has to actually dip below the horizon, meaning the flat plain is anything but, leaving us a round earth, and that moment when "two parallel line converge" is the sun going below the horizon.

No answer for either
With no input from the community, perhaps they have no answer. If they have none, the next group who does are the Globalists, meaning the Earth must be round.


Right. There you go. Theres my proof. No matter what, a round earth has to be the answer. If it wasn't, then a picture of the sun over Japan, from New York, shouldn't be any type of issue. i would even accept a sun over London, from New York. No mountains or anything in the way.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 20, 2019, 07:39:29 AM »

Here are my flat earth answers :
1. The ship cannot go below the horizon, because the earth is flat.
2. How can two points cross, they are by definition just points.

Do I win a prize?

No, but I will give you points for trying. My second question was a direct quote from a Flat Earther by the by.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 20, 2019, 07:18:27 AM »

I am here to prove a point. However, I am waiting for my answers. They are very, very simple.

If your proof needs people to answer questions, they aren't good proofs.

But if you really need them answered:
No.

No to, both?

I have asked my two questions. Do you have answers?

You stated "I can prove the Earth is round. I just need to ask two questions."

You asked your two questions.

Did you perhaps instead intend "I can prove the Earth is round. I just need to you to provide answers to two questions."?

You do see the difference, right?

(That's a rhetorical question. I don't need you to provide the answer.)

Not really. The answers are my proof. Really, any answer can prove it. Yes, no, or none. All prove me right. So, which is it friend? Yes, no, or do you not have an answer? To make it a bit clearer: an answer is important, which answer you choose, is not.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 19, 2019, 09:15:20 PM »

I am here to prove a point. However, I am waiting for my answers. They are very, very simple.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 19, 2019, 02:52:14 PM »

I have asked my two questions. Do you have answers?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 19, 2019, 01:56:46 PM »

I can prove the Earth is round. I just need to ask two questions.

 1: if a ship goes below the horizon, you can zoom in, and bring it back, right?

2: Perspective Convergence is when two points "cross" in the distance, right?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW DO WORDS WORK????!???

« on: December 28, 2018, 03:28:25 AM »

I have proven, your descriptions are not words.

You have proven no such thing.
By your own admission they are words, specifically jargon:
"special words or expressions used by a profession or group that are difficult for others to understand."

That means it isn't real

The existence and acceptance of a word has no bearing upon if what it describes is real.

This means Earth can have no gas, a layer of gas above an open surface, or a shell of gas around a closed surface.

As such, your semantics has absolutely no bearing upon if Earth is flat.

Expressions. Meaning "a word or phrase, especially an idiomatic one, used to convey an idea." This does not make it a word. It makes it a fancy form of slang. Its no different then me saying "I got ganked on Charlie by a tank with a healer." Means nothing... Outside the gaming community. Its meaningless without context. However, this is not the case with actual words. Uaing recognised words, i can convey a thought without the necessary "in knowledge" of a particular group. IE: yeah, I ran into this guy who won without a fight from me. He ambushed me, and all the damage I did was negated by his friend healing him during the fight (I got ganked on Charlie by a tank and his healer).

As for your second thought... That makes 0 sense. The Earth has an atmosphere. Detailed by science, defined by dictionaries, breathed by us. The Earth, by definition, has to be round, with a gaseous layer. Atmodisk isn't a word. Atmo... What else? Layer? Plane? Whatever it was... Also isn't a word. At best it is jargon, which is acceptable, and really only understood, within a particular group, and at worst is just nonsense slang understood only within a particular group. (See what i did there? It wasn't by accident).

"However, if you still insist on using jargon, and I can't change your mind, then I can end this whole debate really quick (since apparently you need to use jargon, AND declare yourself the winner amongst Flat Earthers). Ahem. You're entire argument is Hardline. I'm right. You re wrong. End of discussion

There. Now we have settled that. You're more then welcome to join me in the victor's sphere."

Do you see how silly the whole section in quotes sounds? Using jargon never amounts to anything. So, show me, in a dictionary of record, atmo[indication of flat here]. Let me see Miriam Webster, or the Oxford Dictionary showing it. Even better, show me proof that cannot be debunked. Come up with the NASA secret plans. I'm open minded. I really am. However, no Flat Earther has ever impressed me, and most come across as egotistical, and/or unable to cope with the thought that they aren't special. They are like every one else. You are a scientist? Fine. Show me undeniable proof.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two proofs for Globe Earth

« on: December 28, 2018, 03:05:08 AM »

I have given proof. The definition is "the envelope of gases surrounding the earth or another planet." The atmosphere doesn't surround a flat earth.

"The" definition? It's "a" definition. Another definition is "the pervading tone or mood of a place, situation, or work of art."

I see no effort on your part to prove that a flat earth doesn't have this type of atmosphere.

Since your "proof" relies on attempted pedantic wordplay, your proof fails by not having considered that other people can be more pedantic than you.

Peace out. [Mic drop]

You know what. Yoh are right. However, given that the second definition had no bearing on the conversation, I think I needed to include it. And you're right. The Earth may have a particular tone or mood atmosphere. My guess is, it's mood is round.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW DO WORDS WORK????!???

« on: December 23, 2018, 05:08:24 AM »

"Word salad" -SciMan Dan.

No, carefully explaining why your points are pure bullshit.

Which can be done very succinctly, and without all the filler you added.

Lets start at the top. You have proven my point.

No I haven't.
Your point is that a FE is impossible as without an atmosphere you can't have life.
I have disproved that.

Nope. My point was, a FE cannot have an atmosphere, seeing as it isn't a sphere. Since even Flat Earthers use the term "atmosphere," this, by process of elimination, means the earth has to be a sphere.

Youre right. All words are made up. They dont exist, prior to them... Well... Existing.

Yes, so you claiming words are made up doesn't refute what the words describe.

Proof.

The only thing you have managed to "prove" is that the word atmosphere is well known while alternatives for a FE amount to jargon.
You haven't managed to disprove a FE based upon you not liking the jargon. You haven't managed to prove a globe.

These last two are basically one in the same so...
I have proven, your descriptions are not words. By your own admittance, they are jargon. Saying "atmodisk," and "atmoplane," are simply made up words you use to describe the idea of the FE. However, scientifically, those phrases don't exist. I will say this again: Nowhere, outside of the FE community, does the term "atmoplane," or "atmodisk" appear. Neither Merriam-Webster, nor the Oxford dictionary, have heard of your words. This means, they aren't words. They aren't even abbreviations, which both MW, and the Oxford dictionaries, do recognise. UV, X-ray, IR, ext. All recognised. Let me give you an example. You say "the FE has an atmodisk." Well i could counter with "The FE is a blugo. That means it isn't real, but only among Round Earthers." You wouldn't accept it. So, lets stick with officially accepted words, accepted by the dictionaries of record. This means the earth has to have an atmosphere, or nothing. And since my senses tell me it isn't nothing.....

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW DO WORDS WORK????!???

« on: December 22, 2018, 02:12:35 PM »

So, what you are saying, is that a flat earth cannot have an atmosphere? However, the FE community regularly uses that word. So we are at an impasse. Either A: the flat earth has a atmosphere, which makes it a sphere, or B: it doesn't, which would kill all life.

Or C, it has a region of gas, a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, argon and various other molecules, which is not in the shape of a sphere and thus would not be called atmosphere and instead be called something like atmodisk, with this atmodisc supporting life.

It is something made up, and therefore cannot be used as a scientific term.

All words are made up.
In fact, science is quite happy to do that. When they discover something new they are quite happy to make up a word for it, or allow others to do so later down the track to get it named after them.

Not having a word for it doesn't mean it can't exist.
By that reasoning, before we had a word for UV radiation, that absence of a word is proof that it can't exist.
Do you really want to try going down this path?
UV is just a made up word.
Just like IR and microwave and X-ray. I guess they are all fake as well?

That term is very important. It quantifies a theory. It can prove, or disprove.

No. Numbers quantify.
A term is just used to make it easy to recognise and talk about rather than needing a very long phrase.
It cannot prove or disprove a theory.

Have you heard of phlotegen? It was a real word. Does that prove that "theory"?

What about fairies?
That is a word basically everyone knows.
Does the existence of that word prove fairies exist? No.

your term is not searchable anywhere.

I take it you haven't heard of google.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=atmoplane

a term, unrecognized by the dictionary of choice, or much of anyone outside the FE community.

i.e. jargon, something quite common in scientific discussions.
By your reasoning, my PhD, and plenty of others are pure garbage as they use "made up words, unrecognised by the dictionary of choice and much of anyone outside the field".

Grow up.

"Word salad" -SciMan Dan.

Lets start at the top. You have proven my point. A flat earth cannot have an atmosphere. Atmodisk is also not a word.

Youre right. All words are made up. They dont exist, prior to them... Well... Existing. However, a word is clearly defined as a recognised term, found in the dictionary. Ergo, Atmodisk, atmoplane, atmowhatevee, are not words. Neither are UV, X-ray, or IR. They are iabbreviations. Fairies, however, is a word. Which is a pointless argument, as I'm not arguing the existence of the atmosphere. Just pointing out it cannot exist on a flat earth.

Very nice misquoting there. I acknowledge the only place it is searchable is among the FE community. Everywhere else it is an unknown entity.

Which you actually then used in your next quote, to make a different point. Jargon is used. I'm a gamer. I have my own set of jargon. However, very few are words, and none I would use in an actual discussion.

So again. Proof. And i say proof, because so far there has been no checkpoint moment from your side.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two proofs for Globe Earth

« on: December 22, 2018, 10:41:08 AM »

Was this meant for me, or my debate partner, friend?

Go see quorums "irrefutable" proof or join the debate club to learn how not to do this...

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two proofs for Globe Earth

« on: December 22, 2018, 10:40:11 AM »

I have given proof. The definition is "the envelope of gases surrounding the earth or another planet." The atmosphere doesn't surround a flat earth. Therefore it cannot be atmosphere. The only "proof" from you is a term, unrecognized by the dictionary of choice, or much of anyone outside the FE community. So, your term is a colloquialism. Such things are not allowed in an official Debate. As we are debating, this leaves a bit of an issue.

On a side note, you have proven my point now several times, that I am right. Assertion- a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

My definition is fact. I have confidently stated a fact, and you have agreed.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two proofs for Globe Earth

« on: December 22, 2018, 10:05:51 AM »

That term is very important. It quantifies a theory. It can prove, or disprove. I would say it is exceedingly important. I have given proof for my side. All you have given are colloquialisms. I am backed be the Dictionary of choice. You are not. In fact, other then the Flat Earth community, your term is not searchable anywhere. Mine is. You are now trying to avoid, rather then argue, the point. This is a very important term, friend. One that cannot be avoided.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two proofs for Globe Earth

« on: December 22, 2018, 09:48:34 AM »

I am not. A flat earth cannot have an atmosphere. By your own admittance. I will point out, "atmoplane" is not a recognised word. It is something made up, and therefore cannot be used as a scientific term. The only one that is a wholly recognised term is atmosphere. Check the Oxford dictionary. You won't find atmoplane. So, this leaves a bit of a conundrum. At best, "amtoplane" can be described as slang, but that leaves a void where a scientific term goes... So, again, round earth proof.

And, you know, the whole curve that can be seen. That... That too.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two proofs for Globe Earth

« on: December 22, 2018, 09:30:45 AM »

I have seen the curve. I would provide pictures, but they would be dismissed as "fakes" or "illusions."

So, what you are saying, is that a flat earth cannot have an atmosphere? However, the FE community regularly uses that word. So we are at an impasse. Either A: the flat earth has a atmosphere, which makes it a sphere, or B: it doesn't, which would kill all life.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two proofs for Globe Earth

« on: December 22, 2018, 09:19:52 AM »

Well I have seen the curve (which removes the Flat Earth idea), and it is physically impossible for a FE to have an atmosphere so... But please, debunk my proofs.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Two proofs for Globe Earth

« on: December 22, 2018, 09:11:39 AM »

I have two things that prove a Globe Earth.

1: I have seen the curve.

2: a Flat Earth cannot have an atmosphere.

29

Flat Earth Debate / The Pendulum Effect

« on: October 17, 2018, 06:31:38 PM »

Quick question: The Flat Earth Theory says the Earth is not moving. Okay, let's go with that. As such, all things moving would travel the same plain, unless acted upon. For example, a pendulum will swing back and forth in a narrow plane. We've all seen it in clocks. However, a free swinging pendulum, such as an iron ball on a string, will begin "traveling." By that I mean, it will not continue on the same course. It will slowly, but surely, begin rotating. If left long enough, the swinging orb will end up in a circular motion. Without the spinning of the Earth, which is the scientific reasoning, what is the explanation? How does that work in the Flat Earth Theory?

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect

« on: June 20, 2018, 02:37:34 AM »

Anti-cyclonic movement, is the term given to cyclones of the southern hemisphere.

As far as I could tell, that is not the case.
The 2 main uses I could find would indicate that cyclones in the southern hemisphere are still cyclonic.

Storms get progressively worse towards the poles, and weaken towards the equator, due to the Coriolis Effect.

More contributes to storms than simply the rotation of Earth. Most severe storms are quite distant from the poles.

Even small containers are effected. Think toilets. They have no natural spin on the equator, but spin clockwise, or counter-clockwise, in their respectivr hemispheres.

Yes, they are effected, but to a negligible extent, with other factors being a much larger influence meaning in small containers you typically do not see rotation induced by the Coriolis effect.

Snipers do most certainly work off of altitude, as well as distance.

What I meant is they don't try and calculate based upon altitude alone. Instead they can see their targets and aimed based upon that.
They also typically don't do a bunch of math and instead aim and shoot.

Again, check the Army sniper manuals.

You mean like this one:
http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/MILITARY/united_states_army_fm_23-10%20-%2017_august_1994.pdf
Which includes refraction but not the curvature of Earth?
It also indicates they learn with practice, rather than trying to do any math to specifically account for several things.

They are cyclones, they just spin in the opposite direction from the northern hemisphere.
Why are toilets effected, but nothing else? I would say, the fact they spin is negligable enough.
Sniper do, in fact, do quite a bit of math. If you -read- the book, you would see: temp of air, temp.of bullet, coriolis effect (at extreme ranges), air density, wind, clouds, light.... The list goes on. All are factors that have to be calculated. Yes, it requires training, and time om the range, but there are many factors that need to be figured into a long range shot. When youre shooting at long distance, unless you are practicing, you tend to figure in everytbing you can from a "Shoot Book," to hit that first shot. When sniping in the military, its very likely the -only- shot you will get.