1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Question for FEers

« on: March 09, 2019, 11:14:29 AM »

So this is a question strictly for FEers, and that’s why I asked it here.

All I want is know what FEers believe in regards to this question. It’s actually about round Earth, but given the context of the question, it’s indirectly about FE, too.

Basically in a debate thread, sceptimatic believed that a Space X rocket couldn’t land on the barge it was said to land on (in a RE scenario) because after some time into the flight, the Earth will have rotated underneath the rocket.

Given this line of thinking, do you believe that, in a RE scenario, 737s traveling east would have to travel at 1600 mph?

Additionally, this would mean that 737s traveling westward would actually have to be flying backwards at around 400 mph just given what we know about flight times.

Since this type of flight is impossible, do you think that this reasoning gives more credence to FE theory?

Not here to debate. Just want to know.

The atmosphere, the plane, and the passengers are rotating along with the earth, so the speed is all relative to the existing rotation, of course. Drop a ball in a car speeding down the freeway. Does it hit the back of the car, or the floor?

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproving strong Round Earth arguments

« on: February 27, 2019, 01:17:46 PM »

24 hour daylight has been discussed and answered many times. Seeing it in person would do nothing.

Interestingly, I noticed published sunset and sunrise times were inaccurate when I visited near the rim. I guess there must have been a typo in the almanac (lol.)

The sunset and sunrise obviously wouldn't be to the second if one is near the edge of a time zone or in a deeper valley, but more likely you needed a new watch. Only a flat earther could think it more reasonable to invent torturous maps, celestial mechanics, conspiracy theories, laws of motion, etc than to question their watch.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is ROUND, proof video here

« on: February 23, 2019, 10:55:32 AM »

Jack said:
"What is this magical Earth block by UA?"

>> The object's horizontal light - especially from lowest altitude - will strike the earth because the earth accelerates upwards by 1g.

About 35,000 feet is adequate to plainly see the curvature of the earth with the naked eye IF you have at least a 60 degree, or so, view of the horizon. Some commercial airliners fly that high.
Really?
Have you ever calculated how much "the earth accelerating upwards by 1g" could bend light and in what direction?

I haven't calculated the magnitude, because time is phew 

The photons are struck up by the air. The rest hit the ascending earth.
So you cannot see Australia from California unless from sufficiently high altitude.

How high an altitude required? I live in California. Calculate (preferably with Phew) how high I need to go to view Australia. And if able to achieve the altitude necessary to view Australia based upon your calculations I will do so and send pictures.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Noth Star

« on: February 22, 2019, 02:54:31 PM »

The answer takes:
1. South polar centered flat earth AKA PHEW FE.
2. On northern hemiplane, the (extremely high) north star and surrounding stars are reflected by the 1st dome to the 2nd dome to the inhabitants eyes. The actual position is at the celestial south pole.

Where are these supposed "domes," How are they configured, how do you know they exist, and how would they answer my question or explain more and more of the night sky sliding below the horizon as one moves south? And I have no idea what or who a Phew is, sorry.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map

« on: February 22, 2019, 12:22:01 PM »

This map, the unofficial FE map, is a Polar Azimuthal Equidistant (PAE) projection.  Similar to the map on the UN flag.  The Azimuthal Equidistant projection can be centered on any point on earth (frequently on important cities) but the North Pole seems to be politically neutral (at least to white people).  Altho very popular with FEers, especially because it feeds the nonsense about an ice wall, congruent with Antarctica, surrounding the rim of a flat planet, it is not the "official" or definitive Flat Earth map - there is no such official map.

This map is reliable for distances only from the central point (here, the North Pole) and not from any other place, and the distortion in distance becomes worse as the distance from the center increases. 

Every world map on flat paper has some sort of distortion - in shape, distances, direction, and/or area; usually at least two of the four characteristics.  Maps of smaller portions of the world, such as of a single country, also have distortion - usually nearer the edges - but less dramatic, and maps of even smaller portions, such as of cities would have very slight distortions (probably not greater than the width of the lines used to represent highways).  IF (big if) the Earth were really flat then a map on an equally flat paper should have no distortions and not involve any "projection" but only a ratio of scale (e.g. "one inch equals ten thousand miles"), and every other map of the world would be a larger or smaller version of the very same map.

Flat maps only necessarily have distortion if the world is not flat. If it is a sphere, a flap map can't be right, no matter how it is configured. Do you want an easy way to prove round or flat earth? Contact people from every continent and have them measure distances to see if the are all consistent with a sphere. If they are, the earth can't possibly be flat.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Noth Star

« on: February 22, 2019, 11:37:04 AM »

Refracted perspective.

Traveling south of the equator of course lets you see the other celestial axis for star rotation in the Southwen Hemisphere, 180 degrees from Polaris.   The presence of which FE has no answer for.

My point exactly.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Noth Star

« on: February 22, 2019, 11:18:47 AM »

Refracted perspective.

That's quite a stretch.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Noth Star

« on: February 22, 2019, 11:05:57 AM »

Hi, I'm new here so excuse me if this has been covered.

If Earth is flat, why does the north star appear recede toward the horizon as an observer goes south toward the equator to the point where it then drops below the horizon at about 1 degree south?