1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET

« on: June 20, 2013, 05:28:57 PM »

...And yet no responses to any of Levee's arguments pointing out the blatant fallacies inherent in Heliocentric cosmology. That's about par for the course.

2

Flat Earth General / What do you all think about this documentary?

« on: January 17, 2013, 07:29:45 AM »

Have you seen "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"?

Thoughts?

http://krishnatube.com/video/490/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-way-to-the-Moon

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 15, 2013, 01:44:11 PM »

Whoa! Thank you for bringing that photo to my attention, Neil. The original high resolution source from the wikipedia article about it says its only a "reproduction." :http://genomebiology.com/2011/12/4/112
Even so, it begs more questions than it answers. I might not post again for awhile until I gain perspective from as many angles as I can on this issue. This is Pandora's box indeed!

I wonder why more aren't offering explanations as to the moon's curious shape, which seemingly defies the laws of physics that keep it in orbit around the earth. Am I now to believe I should be observing a prolate spheroid moon from my perspective here on earth because of this supposed "tidal lock" phenomenon?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 15, 2013, 09:35:29 AM »

A good visual representation of the assumed oblate shape of the moon (its oblateness being...perpindicular to the tangent of the arc of its rotation) caused by a supposed "tidal lock" is demonstrated on a figure on this page: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2008/04/29/why-do-we-only-see-one-side-of-the-moon/

So in essence, the moon should appear prolate from earth..?

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 15, 2013, 09:29:36 AM »

http://www.nasa.gov/mov/142368main_moonrotation_cc.mov

As far as the moon is concerned, I go back to my original question. If the moon's rotation and revolution speeds are synchronized because of a displacement of water content in the moon (please correct me if there are any better theories out there that explain this phenomenon without the moon having an assumed water content), shouldn't that content cause some sort of physical deformation that is detectable with a simple, earth-based observation?

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 15, 2013, 09:24:08 AM »

Also, I was referring to photographic evidence of the earth being an oblate spheroid, not Jupiter.

Earth's diameter is 12,756km at the equator, and 12,713 at the poles.

If you have any sort of image editor, create a new image that is about 14,000x14,000 pixels.  (I'd go with 2-color B&W as it's about 90mb if I remember from the last time i tried this)

Now use the circle tool to make a 12,756 pixel circle.

Use re-size to make it 14,000(horizontal)x13,957(vertical).  You should now have a 12,756x12,713 (give or take 1 or 2 pixels) circle. 

Does the circle appear oblate? 

Also, is anyone aware of a picture of the Earth with a high enough resolution to see this difference of 43km out of 12,756?  (not including the atmosphere)

I'm examining the "Blue Marble" series of composites from Suomi NPP. But that's another thing, why can't I find a single picture of the earth that isn't a series of photos stitched together? That would provide the basis of a true test.

7

The Lounge / Re: Conspiracy Theories you Believe in

« on: January 14, 2013, 01:48:37 PM »

I believe that wartime propaganda is real and that the "Great Experiment" (sic) has entailed a perpetual war on the masses since the inception of the Anglo-American empire and even prior to that.  The chief subjects of this experiment --
an experiment mostly psychological in nature -- appear to be the the self avowed "citizens" of the United States.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 14, 2013, 01:12:45 PM »

Also, I was referring to photographic evidence of the earth being an oblate spheroid, not Jupiter.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 14, 2013, 01:09:21 PM »

Don't you agree, Dinosaur, that the moon should appear oblate?

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 14, 2013, 10:29:31 AM »

First, photographic evidence would be disregarded as "it can be faked." Second, even if someone could present a photo showing this, it wouldn't be the easiest thing to simply observe. Just as easily as people could state that they can see it, others could state that they can't see it.

But does the math bare your theory out? How oblate is the earth supposed to be? The sun? The moon? Also, shouldn't a readily observable equatorial "ridge" be seen on these objects?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 14, 2013, 10:01:32 AM »

Shouldn't photographic evidence back up this claim of oblateness? Also, isn't there a distinction between a ridge or bulge along the line of the equator and the general oblate shape our planet is supposed to take?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 14, 2013, 09:35:51 AM »

The bulge hasn't been measured anyway. Its a piece of mathematical jiggery pokery by calculating the supposed speed earth spins, the resulting centripetal forces, the rough consistency of earth and how much they think that would make it 'bulge'. Its ultimately all just part of the fairytale when extrapolating the logical conclusion of some of their rash claims about globularism and whirling planets.

It also hasn't been observed on any celestial body. At least to the best of my knowledge.

It's been observed on Jupiter. It's readily apparent to the eye when viewed through a telescope. It's also been observed on the Sun.

Please back up everything you've just asserted. I'm eager to examine the evidence. Can anyone offer a good explanation as to why the moon looks perfectly spherical (and the sun) given the apparent forces being experienced by these objects. How can the moon be phase locked and still be a perfect spheroid (by all reasonable observations). Also, how can one prove the existence of the bulge on the earth?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 14, 2013, 08:50:14 AM »

I will look forward to more observations from you. You seem able to look at the situation objectively.

Thank you. I am nothing if not a proponent of undefiled reason.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 14, 2013, 08:30:08 AM »

The bulge hasn't been measured anyway. Its a piece of mathematical jiggery pokery by calculating the supposed speed earth spins, the resulting centripetal forces, the rough consistency of earth and how much they think that would make it 'bulge'. Its ultimately all just part of the fairytale when extrapolating the logical conclusion of some of their rash claims about globularism and whirling planets.

It also hasn't been observed on any celestial body. At least to the best of my knowledge.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 14, 2013, 08:15:34 AM »

I should just simply say "apparent".

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 14, 2013, 08:13:50 AM »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/16/sun-perfect-sphere-nature

One would think the "oblate spheroid"-ness of the sun and/or moon (the only celestial disks observable by the human eye without aid of instruments) would be much more apparent...right?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Equatorial Bulge?

« on: January 14, 2013, 07:59:53 AM »

“Equatorial Bulge” (sic) – why is this supposed phenomenon presupposed by so many? Has anyone ever observed it on Earth or any other celestial body?