1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Weather Systems

« on: February 07, 2015, 12:23:19 AM »

So I showed the flat earth theory to one of my lecturers (Including the diagram). 30+ years of experience in modelling the atmosphere, world leader with regards to investigating the MJO.

He said it was a very good attempt. He also told me to "tell anyone crazy enough that believes in a flat earth to go and speak to him" haha.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctic ice sheets

« on: January 27, 2015, 07:16:30 PM »

I guess to summarise so far;

Round-earth theory does a far better job at accounting for ice-sheet processes, and atmospheric/oceanic physics in general (See other recent posts in this forum).

Without an equal wealth of evidence from flat-earth theory, we are forced to conclude that it is much more likely that the earth is spherical.

jroa, I personally don't see these quotes holding up as quality pieces of evidence. It would probably be a waste of time to go looking for them. Are there any other theories that support flat earth with respect to Antarctica?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Weather Systems

« on: January 23, 2015, 04:50:27 AM »

Just for fun, I got bored, and mapped out the approximate weather system under FET.
First, a note. I've seen some suppose there's some rotation of the world going on in FET, as one possible explanation, likely due to the ever-elusive aetheric whirlpool: this fails with the trivial observation that, on a disc, the outer limits must be travelling far faster than the inner. This would give us radically different weather mechanics in the southern hemisphere/outer hemiplane: this should be readily apparent. Of course, it's not.

So, if there's no rotation going on, the primary driving force will be the fact pressure moves from low to high, and the Sun in its cycle. The Sun only imparts heat, however: which can be translated to areas of high pressure.

There are a few things to say here. First, I apologize for my awful diagram skills. Second, I recognize that in no way resembles a map of the Earth, but there's no consensus on a FE map, consider that my input.
Third, is an explanation. The yellow circle represents the Sun, the arrows the direction pressure will travel: the high pressure imparted by the Sun, to the lower pressure areas that receive less heat. With no geostrophic wind, the path is simple: away from the Equator, toward the Poles.
The only remotely complicated addition is the area immediately ahead of where the Sun travels: it will have the lowest pressure of anywhere along the Equator. However, it's a small zone, the only such thing in existence, and will quickly be pushed ahead as the Sun goes on. Its effect will be minimal due to the far greater disparities elsewhere, but I included it simply for completion's sake.
The overall behavior is toward-the-Poles. There's no deflection, no rotation: just a simple motion. The only thing that might happen, would be that there would end up being such high pressure at the Poles that it would end up going outward again: this is possible, but achieves no change beyond flipping the direction of the arrows. It will also clearly happen faster at the smaller North Pole/centre, so this is yet another source of what should be drastically different behaviour in the North and South/inner and outer hemisphere/planes.

The second image gives a very rough picture of the pressure systems. In the inner hemiplane, everything goes towards the centre, in the outer everything heads to the Wall. Without geostrophic flow, it's really quite simple. Whatever other oddities pop up (eg: wind flow over mountains), these may cause temporary, small-scale anomalies, but with no deflection pressure will cleanly flow from high to low, and sort things out. And of course, there's no geostrophic wind, so no circular flow around the pressure systems.
For comparison's sake, an actual map of a pressure system: which comes from observation, and could be used to predict later weather patterns successfully (thus demonstrating it must somehow be genuine as it has a practical benefit):


Not even remotely close.

I love this so much haha. I will show this to one of the lecturers at my uni and get back to you as to how accurate the proposed mechanics for FET are. Pretty sure you are correct though!

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Weather Systems

« on: January 22, 2015, 09:17:48 AM »

Could someone please explain how equatorially trapped Kelvin waves exist on a flat earth, without the coriolis force?

http://www.met.wau.nl/education/MWS/waves/modules/module4/Chapter%204.pdf

Without the "trapping" of these waves at the equator, the Madden-Julian Oscillation, and several other modes of atmospheric variability, would cease to exist.

Without the coriolis force, you wouldn't get close to predicting the weather to the same extent we currently do.

EDIT - another point to consider is that our limitations to weather prediction don't necessarily come from inaccuracies in the models, but rather biases and errors in the observations. There's a bit of both at play, but the error in the physics is far less than you'd think.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctic ice sheets

« on: January 22, 2015, 08:36:11 AM »

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language?

The explorers who have ventured furthest south have never mentioned seeing an ice wall.

Really, they never did?  Do I need to dig up some quotes for you, or are you not wanting to look stupid?

Is this suubject going to die for lack of quotes ?  Maybe jroa is still looking for his shovel to dig up some quotes ?

I am working from my phone, tablet and sometimes my tiny netbook right now.  Can you not have a little patience to let me unpack?  Or do you just have nothing better to do?

The reason people are saying this is because you've replied several times with a lack of quotes, despite saying that you will dig some up.

Why bother replying if you're not going to answer the question? Youc could reply in a month's time with some really good research, and we would be fine about that!
T

I will.  It is hard enough for me to type from my phone, much less copy/paste information, make quotes, or even do any research.  I am in the process of moving.  And will hopefully have my desktop set up by the end of this weekend.  In the mean time, please excuse grammatical errors, typos, and even an occasional lack of replying.

No worries, I completely get it, it's much more difficult working with portable devices imho. Look forward to hearing from you soon!

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctic ice sheets

« on: January 22, 2015, 01:07:48 AM »

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language?

The explorers who have ventured furthest south have never mentioned seeing an ice wall.

Really, they never did?  Do I need to dig up some quotes for you, or are you not wanting to look stupid?

Is this suubject going to die for lack of quotes ?  Maybe jroa is still looking for his shovel to dig up some quotes ?

I am working from my phone, tablet and sometimes my tiny netbook right now.  Can you not have a little patience to let me unpack?  Or do you just have nothing better to do?

The reason people are saying this is because you've replied several times with a lack of quotes, despite saying that you will dig some up.

Why bother replying if you're not going to answer the question? Youc could reply in a month's time with some really good research, and we would be fine about that!
T

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctic ice sheets

« on: January 21, 2015, 12:58:14 AM »

Really, they never did?  Do I need to dig up some quotes for you, or are you not wanting to look stupid?

None of us are worried about looking stupid.

If you provide us with some quotes, we will be able to look into them. If they are from good sources, it will aid you in your argument for a flat earth.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I want to believe the Earth is flat____but will someone please explain why. . .

« on: January 20, 2015, 01:41:44 AM »

Regarding your statement about applications for communication, earth system modelling and the concept of gravity, Flat Earth advocates have feasible explanations for all these things - if one’s not biased. At any rate, most if not all the models you refer to are theories anyway; that’s why they still can’t get the seven day weather forecast right most of the time. Anyway... that’s another debate in itself.

Now it goes without saying that “wanting” something doesn’t make it so, that’s why I’m asking the questions... If you read my title again, I never said “I believe” in a flat earth, all I said was ‘I want to believe’. ‘I’ have my reasons for wanting to believe in a flat earth and without a doubt they are personal. But that’s my business and no-one else’s... I want to believe we are in agreement on this model.

As stated, I’m just asking some questions (which I understand are probably best intended for a flat Earth advocate to come up with some answers). I’ve tried relocating this post in The Flat Earth Believers’ Board day one without success. Perhaps the moderator will assist with this endeavour seeing that the questions raised can only really be answered rightly or wrongly by a Flat Earth Believer.

Re gravity, I have heard of this concept, about the earth accelerating upwards etc. I don't know too much about gravity myself (Neither do scientists to be fair, it is still something that largely remains a mystery). Regarding Earth system models, flat earth can't account for ice sheet dynamics or atmospheric teleconnections that require a south pole. The most obvious problem (As being debated in a thread I began in the debate section) is the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. The current velocites would need to be almost 8 times larger to match observations of other variables.

The seven day forecast problem is due to chaos theory; small perturbations in initial conditions can lead to completely different weather systems over time (7-10 days). To solve this, sensitivity analysis is carried out, as well as ensemble forecasts for longer-term forecasts. However, as you said, this is a seperate and irrelevant debate in itself.

I apologise for coming across as attacking your question. The one thing I would say though, is don't let this "want" cloud your judgement in the face of opposing evidence.

In fear of turning this thread into an argument, I will refrain from debating the evidence provided to you. But I would definitely recommend looking at both sides of the picture.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctic ice sheets

« on: January 20, 2015, 01:25:33 AM »

jroa, you are correct in saying that the continent would still exist if all of the ice melted.

I don't think quotes count as evidence. On a round earth, Antarctica is still extremely large, and at ground level, it would be near-impossible to determine the shape.

The problem with the process of ice loss is that on a flat earth, the edge of the continent is nearly 8 times larger. (78k miles as opposed to 11k was it?). So in terms of freshwater flux from ice melt, the measured rates (Which correlate with satellite data looking down on a round earth) wouldn't add up on a flat earth.

On a tangent, the antarctic circumpolar current would also need to be approximately 8 times faster in order to transport tracers, ARGO floats etc to the same extent as measured.

In summary, these would be gaps in the science if the flat earth theory was correct. They can be explained easily by a round earth, but is there an equivalent explanation for a FE?

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What would it take to change your mind?

« on: January 19, 2015, 03:32:05 AM »

Religion is inherently designed (Whether by humans or by a higher power) to be inprovable. Otherwise, why would we need to have "faith"?

With this in mind, I don't think the biblical quotes have much purpose or weight regarding evidence for flat earth.

Pictures that are taken higher up clearly show a round, spherical earth.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I want to believe the Earth is flat____but will someone please explain why. . .

« on: January 19, 2015, 03:18:44 AM »

"Wanting" something in science doesn't work, because in order for science to work, it needs to remain unbiased.

Also, believing something doesn't make it objectively true.

In a sense, you can make an approximation of a flat earth in most cases because the spherical shape doesn't play a significant role in our day-to-day lives. But it has important applications for communication, earth system modelling, and also to help explain concepts such as gravity.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is a RET nonsense to you FEers

« on: January 19, 2015, 01:33:48 AM »

The only way to fully and objectively understand a system, is to be an observer outside of it. The problem with FET is that it is based on a subjective viewpoint. The earth's roundness is too big to be observed at ground level, or even miles high. But it HAS been observed at much higher altitudes, and in space.

100% of what we have observed when looking at the earth from afar, is a round earth theory.

It is not so much that RET does not make sense, it is that they start with the conclusion that the earth is flat and work backwards.  RET is either a misinterpretation of the flat earth, or it is a hoax that some cabal of global conspirators have created to trick people into thinking the earth is not flat.  To the FETer, evidence is something to explain.  True science makes predictions and creates experiments that can prove or disprove a hypothesis.  A big hole with FET is that every time they try to explain one observation, the explanation does not work with other observations.  At this point it is time to call in the conspiracy or just claim it is some 'bendy' effect of light or some such non sense.

Part of the issue is the nature of language.  Most words have multiple meanings and subtle differences in connotation.  Take the word free for example, Merriam Webster has 15 definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

So the term 'free thinker' can be interpreted many ways.  Free thinking in therms of FET amounts to 'worthless thinking'. 

The confusion comes in when they claim someone who accepts RET is not a free thinker.  Somehow there is a leap of reason that makes that claim self evident to the FETer.  But there is a great amount of freedom in RET, one is free to test any and all claims and if something is found to be incorrect and can be demonstrated, the results will be added to the sum of human knowledge.  One is even free to let go of any concept of shape and look for a model that better fits what is observed.  FET is not free, it does not allow for the 'fact' that the earth is flat to be released.  It is an odd free speech dogma, a construct that says the individual is as good of an authority as any, and as such they are free to hold  "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma)".

The reason I provide a link to the definition of dogma is because I need the authoritative definition if I am to be understood.  Authority is not always a bad thing, and it is required for communication with human language.  People can and will abuse authority, but without it we are cavemen slugging it out in the muck.

All of this. Brilliant post.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctic ice sheets

« on: January 19, 2015, 12:54:43 AM »

I think the question should be.:

How would the melting of the ICE WALL affect a FLAT EARTH ?

Why would the Arctic ice sheets be dependant on the shape of the Earth?

This is a typical time-wasting, non-responsive answer by jroa.  You answered a question that was not asked. The question was "In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?".  Please answer that question.

I think the best way to put this question (Slightly modified from my first post) is "How are the effects of ice loss represented?". The two things that come to mind are;

1) What happens when there is no more ice?
2) Freshwater flux - as the oceans are clearly larger on a flat earth, there would need to be a much larger amount of freshwater flux. The rate of ice loss is measured with good reliability, and the numbers wouldn't add up on a flat earth.
Sea level change is also a consideration, but it's effects are relatively small from ice loss.

jroa, you are coming across as a troll. Please try and answer the question directly.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctic ice sheets

« on: January 16, 2015, 05:27:44 PM »

The Antarctic ice sheets are receding as a result of climate change (See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf). There are countless sources of data concerning the measurement of ice loss, as cited in AR5.

In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?

Actually I have a follow up, its been kinda bugging me for a while, along with that how does climate change and greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect work in FE?

The majority of climate science does not work on a flat-earth model. We wouldn't have an atmosphere at all if we were living on a flat disc that was accelerating upwards; what keeps the atmosphere above the flat disc, for example?

I'm waiting for a flat-earther to provide an explanation for atmospheric and oceanic dynamics. I have a limited scientific background (fourth/final year of an MSci degree in Meteorology and Oceanography at UEA, interview for PhD next month), but will be happy to show how everything works on a sphere if necessary.

The reason I'm posting these questions btw is because I'm intrigued by the slight possibility that the earth is flat. Science is not an argument of opinion, it is a discussion of how the world might work.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Antarctic ice sheets

« on: January 16, 2015, 04:46:47 PM »

The Antarctic ice sheets are receding as a result of climate change (See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf). There are countless sources of data concerning the measurement of ice loss, as cited in AR5.

In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I've got a few technical questions for you flat earthers

« on: January 16, 2015, 02:39:34 AM »

Ok here come the questions. Please answer with legitimate answers, not "confirmation needed" or some crap.

If the earth is flat why can you not see infinitely far or an ice wall when on a boat or plane over the ocean?

How do you explain the horizon line?

Why can you not see the same stars from any where on earth?

How do tides work if the moon doesn't exert gravity on the earth?

Why would the idea of a spherical earth ever stay if it was not proven by millions of tests from 200 years ago till today.

Why is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge built to compensate for the curvature of the earth? http://web.mta.info/bandt/html/veraz.html

If you do not believe what you cannot personally verify why do you believe this theory?

Do you believe that any and all modern scientists are working for the government?

Is anyone who doesn't believe your theory and has evidence for a spherical earth working for the government?

I called it the government in the last questions but who is "trying to make us believe the earth is spherical" and for what purpose? Believing in a spherical earth does no harm to anyone.

Why is there an extremely overwhelming majority of people who have personally been around the earth than who have seen a massive ice wall or something?

If the society or government who wants us to believe in a spherical earth has all this power over people to make them lie and say the earth is spherical why don't they shut you the fuck down immediately?

I will answer all of your questions easily.

Because the earth is round.

I think the last two questions are very interesting. If the earth was flat, there would be no reason to try and hide it.

In fact, all of your questions are excellent. I await the first reply from a flat-earther. The only one that can be debunked is the Narrows Bridge; as far as I can tell, that figure isn't from measurement, but from calculation based on a spherical earth assumption. It can't be used as proof, but I am 100% certain that if someone measured it, it would be correct.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Surface Area, Ocean Currents, and The Coriolis Force

« on: January 16, 2015, 02:26:48 AM »

Welcome,  ryangilchrist92.

Where did you get that 40,075 km figure for the radius of the flat earth? That looks like it would be the diameter for the cases I've seen. This would make your calculation for the surface area too large by a factor of four. It's still larger than the actual (spherical) surface area by a more than double, though.

Enjoy your stay.

Hi Alpha2Omega,

Yes you are completely correct. I used the diameter/circumference as opposed to the radius/distance from North to South pole. Thanks for the clarification. Would be a factor of 2.5 as opposed to 10 haha (But still very significant considering the error margins in the observations!)

18

Flat Earth General / Surface Area, Ocean Currents, and The Coriolis Force

« on: January 15, 2015, 07:19:44 PM »

Three things for flat earth fanatics to ponder.

1) The surface area of the flat earth model is approximately ten times the surface area of the spherical earth model. The distance from the North to South pole (or "edge") is 40,075km, giving a surface area of 5045415473.12km^2. The radius of the earth is approximately 6,400km, giving a surface area of 510,072,000 km².

 A similar ratio can therefore be applied to the troposphere (First ~10km of the atmosphere, 10km << radius of the earth, so the surface area of the top of the troposphere is negligibly larger than the surface area at ground level).

The magnitude of greenhouse gas emission causes an increase of GHG concentration in the atmosphere. The majority (>99%) of these emissions remain in the troposphere. Observed increases in concentration accurately reflect measured GHG emissions for the spherical earth. (See IPCC AR5, chapter 8 http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/)

This doesn't work for a flat earth model, unless the troposphere is ten times thinner. This clearly isnt true. (Temperature profiles show an inversion taking place at 10km (The tropopause), and in addition, almost all weather processes require heights in excess of 1km, which can only occur in the troposphere).


2) Measurements of the ACC (Antarctic Circumpolar Current) are incorrect on a flat earth model. This is most notable through looking at the observed current speeds (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2037.html). The time taken for a tracer to complete one full "lap" of this current would be magnitudes higher than observed on the flat earth model.


3) The coriolis force. More specifically, the concept of geostrophic balance. there is no equivalent mechanism on a flat earth model. The coriolis force is an essential component of processes such as vorticity conservation, longwave rossby waves at mid-latitude, and in limiting equatorial weather signals (e.g. the MJO) to keeping at low latitude.


These three concepts are unequivocally agreed upon in the scientific community, because of the wealth of observation and measurement in favour of them for a spherical earth, and lack of alternative explanation. More importantly, they can only function correctly on a spherical earth.

These points provide a thorough explanation as to why the earth must be spherical.