Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - SomeRandomPerson

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Simulations of flat Earth model and globe model
« on: July 11, 2018, 03:09:58 AM »
I found a website which has simulations for both the globe and flat Earth model.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?blog=list&tag=FlatEarth

It has the dome model as flat Earthers claim it to be. You can play around with it and see how the moon and the sun behave in your dome model.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat+Earth+Dome+Model

It also has a comparison of the horizon. You can change a lot of settings for both the globe and the flat Earth model, including refraction, viewing height, distance of objects, and compare them.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth

I think you might at least enjoy the flat Earth part.

2
I made a short comparison about the cost, effort and benefits of lying about the shape of the Earth

NASA:

1) The number and details of sources supporting a spherical Earth.
For a spherical Earth you find thousands of sources from many different people from all over the world. Many of which are in great detail.

2) Explanations for many phenomena about Earth the universe and so on.
Science tries to explain everything. If you ask scientists a question, the try to find the best fitting answer. Also all their answers are supported by evidence, calculations and so on. In case that they find contradictions (which happens frequently), they look into it, look for mistakes in their model and update it. With a bit of research you can find a paper for pretty much anything in great detail.

3) Photos from space.
I know you don't believe in neither space travel nor photos. Still there are tens of thousands. NASA alone has more than 28,000 photos and videos about Earth.
https://images.nasa.gov/search-results?q=earth&page=1&media=image,video&yearStart=1920&yearEnd=2018

Before you try to prove the photos to be fake, read the description. For example:
https://images.nasa.gov/details-PIA18033.html
NASA clearly states that this photo is a montage.
Quote
Behold one of the more detailed images of the Earth yet created. This Blue Marble Earth montage shown above -- created from photographs taken by the Visible/Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) instrument on board the new Suomi NPP satellite -- shows many stunning details of our home planet. The Suomi NPP satellite was launched last October and renamed last week after Verner Suomi, commonly deemed the father of satellite meteorology. The composite was created from the data collected during four orbits of the robotic satellite taken earlier this month and digitally projected onto the globe. Many features of North America and the Western Hemisphere are particularly visible on a high resolution version of the image. http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA18033
By proving that it's a montage you are just proving that NASA is telling the truth about the photo.

If you try to disprove photos, try this one.
https://images.nasa.gov/details-PIA00123.html
Quote
This color image of the Earth was obtained by NASA’s Galileo spacecraft early Dec. 12, 1990, when the spacecraft was about 1.6 million miles from the Earth. http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00123
As stated by NASA that photo is a single picture. By the way it's not CGI, that I can assure you. CGI technology wasn't advanced enough in 1990 to create a picture like that. For some reason I expect you to say: "It wasn't created in the nineties. That's just a lie to confuse you."
Knowing that you don't like NASA, here are some galleries by ROSCOSMOS (the Russian space agency).
http://en.roscosmos.ru/309/

4) Cost and effort of lying.
NASA would have to fake all their more than 140,000 pictures (those include pictures of other planets, stars, nebulae etc...) taken from space. They also have to build rockets and other spacecraft some of which you can find in various museums. They actually have to work, because you can watch the launches. They would also have to fake anything related to space or Earth explorations of the last 2,000 years. Anyone who has anything to do with those things, would need to be kept quiet. Every telecommunication company using satellites, anyone traveling the world with planes or boats, anyone who has ever been to Antarctica, every other space agency, etc...
Here you can find an overview of NASA's budget and what they are using it for.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_fy_2019_budget_overview.pdf
Read it first, before complaining about it. NASA is very open with their research, many things are publicly available.
If that's not enough they also have a more detailed version.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy19_nasa_budget_estimates.pdf

5) Benefits of lying.
There is no benefit to fake it. The costs would just outmatch any kind of benefit they could make. If NASA is doing some kind of secret project, it would be a lot easier and cheaper to simply deny it and use their resources for that secret project instead of faking space travel. Additionally there would be no need to lie about the shape of Earth or fake space travel, to get some resources.


Flat Earth society:

1) The number and details of sources supporting a flat Earth.
There aren't many sources. Most evidence is only done by a few people and are very vague. Even wikipedia is more detailed than those sources. Some things don't even have evidence at all. For example the ice wall, the dome or that shadow object you use for the lunar eclipse. No flat Earther has ever gone to Antarctica or the edge of your world and written a report about it. I asked that question before. The reply I got, was someone asking me if I have gone there. I haven't gone there myself, but there are people who have gone there and wrote a report about it, took photos etc... The flat Earther talking about Antarctica or your ice wall don't even claim to ever have gone there.
Look through your own sources and think, if you would accept such a source as evidence for a spherical Earth. I looked through your library, and all of those books can be made up by a high school student.

2) Explanations for phenomena.
Flat Earth lacks quite a lot of explanations. The explanations you have are often contradicting observations. For example the lunar eclipse.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse
In your explanation you need a shadow object, which has never been observed. The explanation that the shadow object can't be seen, because it orbits close to the sun, contradicts the observations of Venus and Mercury.
The lunar phases are also a contradiction. In your model it's possible to see the moon from different sides depending on your location, resulting in different phases. Yet observations show that the moon phases are the same independent of your location.

3) You don't have any photos from space at all, but since don't believe in photos anyway, it doesn't really matter.

4) Cost and effort to fake evidence.
You barely have any costs at all. The only things you do is observing and coming up with explanations. You don't even bother to update your explanations, since you simply say that every contradiction is a lie. Additionally you often don't even explain, why the contradiction is wrong. Instead you just ask questions about the spherical Earth, which by the way most of the time can and have been answered even though you simply ignore the answer. As mentioned before, some things (ice wall, dome) are claimed without any kind of observation.

5) Benefits of claiming the Earth to be flat.
By convincing people to believe that the Earth is flat, you can gain new members. Those members pay a membership fee, generating money for the flat Earth society. If there are more ways to make money, feel free to add them. Since your costs are rather low, you don't need much to make a profit.

By saying that everything given for a spherical Earth is fake, you are just proving point 4 of my reasons against a flat Earth.

Conclusion:
The flat Earth society has it a lot easier to lie, and lying provides you with more benefits than it does for NASA.

It's not evidence about the shape of the Earth, it's just shows that flat earth society is more likely to lie. Ask yourselves why do you believe the people claiming that a spherical Earth is fake?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Sun path
« on: June 22, 2018, 02:19:55 PM »
It's summer right now, so the sun would be in the north right now according to the flat Earth model, right? So if you live south of the arctic circle, you would see it in the north at noon, right? If you live north of the equator and south of the arctic, where do you see the sun? Go outside and observe the sun. According to my observations it appears in the south at noon. How is that possible on a flat Earth?

Do the observations yourselves, since you don't believe me anyway.

Wikipedia has an explanation for that on a spherical Earth. I know you don't believe in Wikipedia, but for this purpose it's good enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_path

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica
« on: June 19, 2018, 10:28:11 AM »
Has any flat Earther ever gone to Antarctica? If not, why? Is it because of soldiers guarding it? If none of you have ever gone there, why do you think there would be soldiers?
You can't use the Antarctic treaty as argument for that claim.
Quote
Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military maneuvers, as well as the testing of any type of weapons.
https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp
If you claim that this treaty is a lie, then what is the real one and where the heck did you find it?

If you need evidence that you are actually in Antarctica, look for a colony of Emperor Penguins for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_penguin

Flat Earthers are able to go to the Arctic, so some of you should also be able to go to Antarctica. Don't make up excuses that it's impossible, you can't know that if no one of you actually tried it. Even on a flat Earth it's possible to reach your ice wall. Also trying and failing doesn't mean it's impossible. Most inventions for example failed at the beginning or were thought to be impossible. For instance it was believed that heavier than air aircraft are impossible, yet we now have planes.

You can book a cruise to Antarctica. There is certainly someone of you able to afford it.
http://www.antarcticatravels.com/en/antarctica/classic-antarctica/16,classic-antarctica/
https://oceanwide-expeditions.com/antarctica/cruises

Evidences that you are actually in Antarctica are a 24h day in summer (summer in Antarctica obviously) and emperor penguins or other wildlife native to Antarctica.

Here is a list of expeditions to Antarctica showing that there are people exploring it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions
I know you are just going to say those are fake or something like that. For that reason one of you should go there a make a report. Best if you update the report daily, in case you disappear (which I doubt is going to happen, but you claim that NASA or whoever would stop you) we at least know when and where.

You are either going to prove that the ice wall exists or that Antarctica is a continent with a 24h day during summer, destroying your ice wall and the flat Earth with it.

If there is a flat Earther who traveled there and returned, I would like to talk to them. If there is one who disappeared, what's their name, when and where did they disappear?
Have you been to Antarctica?

Have you been to further north than 20 degrees latitude?

I said any flat Earther at all. I did not mean a specific person. Let me rephrase the question. Is there any report made by a flat Earther who has gone to Antarctica?

I'm certain you haven't gone to every other continent (excluding Antarctica in this case). Yet you are not going to claim that one of those is fake.
I am unaware of any reports about Antarctica from any FE believer.

I have never been to Antarctica and see no reason to go and have no problem disbelieving Antarctica is as RE-tards claim.

My point is you have no problem believing it is as claimed and you have not been there either.

This topic is not about other continents.

There are a lot of movies, photos, reports about Antarctica, its wildlife etc... by people who have gone there or at the very least claim to have gone there. Flat Earther don't have anything like that. Everything about Antarctica or your ice wall is made by people, who don't even claim to have been there.

You are right that the topic is not directly about the other continents, but your arguments that I shouldn't believe in Antarctica, just because I haven't been there also applies to every other continent I haven't been to. Using your logic, you shouldn't believe in anything that you haven't seen with your own eyes. Why do you believe that the other continents you haven't visited aren't faked as well? You don't need reply to these questions, since they are off topic, just think about them.

Coming back to Antarctica. Why do you believe there is an ice wall, which is defended by soldiers, if you haven't been there? I at least, as mentioned before have photos, videos, reports etc.. about Antarctica made by people, who have been there (or at least claim to have been there, since you don't believe in anything contradicting a flat Earth). You on the other hand don't have anything except someone, who says that there is an ice wall protected by soldiers. Those people have never been there and have no evidence whatsoever. Why do you believe those people?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica
« on: June 19, 2018, 01:46:46 AM »
Has any flat Earther ever gone to Antarctica? If not, why? Is it because of soldiers guarding it? If none of you have ever gone there, why do you think there would be soldiers?
You can't use the Antarctic treaty as argument for that claim.
Quote
Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military maneuvers, as well as the testing of any type of weapons.
https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp
If you claim that this treaty is a lie, then what is the real one and where the heck did you find it?

If you need evidence that you are actually in Antarctica, look for a colony of Emperor Penguins for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_penguin

Flat Earthers are able to go to the Arctic, so some of you should also be able to go to Antarctica. Don't make up excuses that it's impossible, you can't know that if no one of you actually tried it. Even on a flat Earth it's possible to reach your ice wall. Also trying and failing doesn't mean it's impossible. Most inventions for example failed at the beginning or were thought to be impossible. For instance it was believed that heavier than air aircraft are impossible, yet we now have planes.

You can book a cruise to Antarctica. There is certainly someone of you able to afford it.
http://www.antarcticatravels.com/en/antarctica/classic-antarctica/16,classic-antarctica/
https://oceanwide-expeditions.com/antarctica/cruises

Evidences that you are actually in Antarctica are a 24h day in summer (summer in Antarctica obviously) and emperor penguins or other wildlife native to Antarctica.

Here is a list of expeditions to Antarctica showing that there are people exploring it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions
I know you are just going to say those are fake or something like that. For that reason one of you should go there a make a report. Best if you update the report daily, in case you disappear (which I doubt is going to happen, but you claim that NASA or whoever would stop you) we at least know when and where.

You are either going to prove that the ice wall exists or that Antarctica is a continent with a 24h day during summer, destroying your ice wall and the flat Earth with it.

If there is a flat Earther who traveled there and returned, I would like to talk to them. If there is one who disappeared, what's their name, when and where did they disappear?
Have you been to Antarctica?

Have you been to further north than 20 degrees latitude?

I said any flat Earther at all. I did not mean a specific person. Let me rephrase the question. Is there any report made by a flat Earther who has gone to Antarctica?

I'm certain you haven't gone to every other continent (excluding Antarctica in this case). Yet you are not going to claim that one of those is fake.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Antarctica
« on: June 18, 2018, 07:56:16 AM »
Has any flat Earther ever gone to Antarctica? If not, why? Is it because of soldiers guarding it? If none of you have ever gone there, why do you think there would be soldiers?
You can't use the Antarctic treaty as argument for that claim.
Quote
Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military maneuvers, as well as the testing of any type of weapons.
https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp
If you claim that this treaty is a lie, then what is the real one and where the heck did you find it?

If you need evidence that you are actually in Antarctica, look for a colony of Emperor Penguins for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_penguin

Flat Earthers are able to go to the Arctic, so some of you should also be able to go to Antarctica. Don't make up excuses that it's impossible, you can't know that if no one of you actually tried it. Even on a flat Earth it's possible to reach your ice wall. Also trying and failing doesn't mean it's impossible. Most inventions for example failed at the beginning or were thought to be impossible. For instance it was believed that heavier than air aircraft are impossible, yet we now have planes.

You can book a cruise to Antarctica. There is certainly someone of you able to afford it.
http://www.antarcticatravels.com/en/antarctica/classic-antarctica/16,classic-antarctica/
https://oceanwide-expeditions.com/antarctica/cruises

Evidences that you are actually in Antarctica are a 24h day in summer (summer in Antarctica obviously) and emperor penguins or other wildlife native to Antarctica.

Here is a list of expeditions to Antarctica showing that there are people exploring it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions
I know you are just going to say those are fake or something like that. For that reason one of you should go there a make a report. Best if you update the report daily, in case you disappear (which I doubt is going to happen, but you claim that NASA or whoever would stop you) we at least know when and where.

You are either going to prove that the ice wall exists or that Antarctica is a continent with a 24h day during summer, destroying your ice wall and the flat Earth with it.

If there is a flat Earther who traveled there and returned, I would like to talk to them. If there is one who disappeared, what's their name, when and where did they disappear?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A few questions for Flat Earthers...
« on: June 17, 2018, 12:20:47 AM »
2. First of all, Universal Acceleration is contradicted by your own FAQ. Secondly, it would have reached the speed of light in less than a year and wouldn't be able to continue accelerating. Also it would need an infinite amount of energy. Even if you claim it continues to accelerate, the acceleration would need to slow down. I admit I'm not sure about that and have to look it up. Also it would contradict one common flat Earth claim, that Earth is not moving. You can't have acceleration without movement.
You are considering it from an outside observer.
To an outside observer, Earth can't continue to accelerate at a constant, it would reach the speed of light.
However, to someone on Earth, accelerating with Earth, it can.
To an outside observer, the acceleration would appear to slow down. But time is also dilated. That means a watch in this accelerating frame would also slow down.
This means that the observer accelerating with Earth can continue to feel the same acceleration.

As I said I'm not sure about the physics near the speed of light, so let's just assume you are right and it would feel the same. Where does the energy come from? You need energy to accelerate. A constant movement on the other hand doesn't need energy as long there is nothing slowing it down. What about the common claim that Earth is not moving? If you contradict that claim, you would lose quite a lot of arguments against the rotation of the Earth, and against the movements of planes on Earth etc...

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A few questions for Flat Earthers...
« on: June 16, 2018, 01:22:42 PM »
Welcome!

I'm a Flat Earther, but probably not the one you are looking for, since I do not believe in many of the ideas you question. Nevertheless, I'll try to answer them as best I can. Also, there are further answers for these if you go looking, but I figured I may as well help you out.

1. Some believe there is land and resources beyond the Ice Wall, and this is hidden so these resources can be exploited. Others believe it has just become too big of a lie, that if the truth were revealed, it would show how dishonest the government is, which is why it's kept secret.

2. There are many theories, including density (something rising or sinking based on displacement of air), and even that the Earth itself is rising (although I don't think anyone believes this here).

3. As far as I know, there are no pictures of the flat Earth. I haven't seen any yet.

4. Personally, I believe that apart from what you mention, it is completely flat, although many others here do not.

5. I don't know, sorry. I believe it is a solid ice barrier that surrounds everything, but I actually haven't seen too many people talk about the dome.

6. I believe the moon is real, as for it's phases, again I'm not too sure what others think. Sorry I can't be more helpful on these two, but if you look around there are answers to these questions to be found here.

7. Many of us think other planets are flat, too.

I hope that's answered a few of your questions, if you're still curious or my lack of knowledge shows, there are thousands of times these questions have been answered if you look a little into these forums.

Again, welcome!

1. If there are hidden resources somewhere, there would be no reason to create such a huge lie. They could just go there and take them, just like they do anywhere else. Also a lie of that scale is not possible to keep up. Just look at the VW emission scandal, or Edward Snowden, or any secret project. If too many people know about it, someone is going to tell the truth. Secrets on a large scale can only be kept for a few years, maybe a few decades, if it's a smaller and highly confidential project.

2. If density (mass/volume) is an explanation, you would just come back to mass, which leads to gravity.

1. The main reason is money.

2. Universal Acceleration is one explanation. Here's a pretty good write up https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458

3. We do not believe space travel is possible... but every picture of the earth is a picture of the flat earth!

4. I'm not sure what it is you are asking.

5. I don't know about this one, I don't think there is a dome.

6. The moon is not fake. Please don't spend too much time looking at it, it's dangerous.

7. It is unknown if there are other flat worlds.

P.S. Your spelling wasn't bad at all.

1. If it's about money, why would they waste billions to fake the entire spaceprogram? They would need to build actually working rockets (you can watch the launches), they need to pay hundred of thousands employees to fake it (the Apollo program had about 400,000 people working on it). There are over 140,000 pictures taken from space, which all would have to be faked as well. Everyone who knows the truth would need to be kept quiet. Look at the VW emissions scandal and see for yourself how "well" that works. What benefit would they have, that couldn't be achieved by simple denial and using their resources for whatever project instead of using it for faking evidence?

2. First of all, Universal Acceleration is contradicted by your own FAQ. Secondly, it would have reached the speed of light in less than a year and wouldn't be able to continue accelerating. Also it would need an infinite amount of energy. Even if you claim it continues to accelerate, the acceleration would need to slow down. I admit I'm not sure about that and have to look it up. Also it would contradict one common flat Earth claim, that Earth is not moving. You can't have acceleration without movement.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do tides work on a flat earth
« on: June 13, 2018, 12:18:17 AM »
I posted a paper which answers pretty much all questions about tides on a spherical Earth, which of course has been completely ignored. So I post it again.
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/119157/1/sea-level.pdf
It answers the questions asked. Can you post something equally or more detailled than that paper explaining tides for the flat Earth?

The tidal bulges for example are explained in chapter 5 page 142 as numbered in the document or 156 as numbered in the pdf.

Quote
The Equilibrium  Tide  developed  from  Newton's  theory  of gravitation  consists of two symmetrical tidal bulges, directly under and  directly opposite the moon or  sun.  Semidiurnal  tidal  ranges  would  reach  their  maximum  value  of  about 0.5 m  at  equatorial  latitudes.  The  individual  high  water  bulges  would  track around  the  earth,  moving  from  east  to  west  in  steady  progression.  These characteristics  are  clearly not  those  of the  observed tides.
The  observed  tides  in  the  main  oceans  have  mean  ranges  of  about  0-1 m (amplitudes  0-0.5 m), but  there are considerable  variations. The  times of  tidal high  water  vary  in  a  geographical  pattern,  as  illustrated  in  Figure  5:1, which bears  no  relationship  to  the  simple  ideas  of  a  double  bulge.  The  tides  spread from  the  oceans onto  the  surrounding  continental  shelves, where much  larger ranges are observed. In some shelf seas the spring tidal ranges may exceed  10 m: the  Bay  of  Fundy,  the  Bristol  Channel,  the  Baie de Mont  St  Michele  and  the Argentine  Shelf  are  well  known  examples.  In  the  case  of  the  North West European  shelf tides approach  from  the Atlantic Ocean in a progression to the north and to the east, which is quite different  from  the Equilibrium hypothesis.
Some indication of the different  tidal patterns generated by the global and local ocean  responses  to  the  tidal  forcing  are  shown  in  Figure  1:1. The  reasons  for these complicated  ocean  responses may  be summarized  as  follows:
(1)    Movements  of  water  on  the  surface  of  the  earth  must  obey  the  physical laws  represented   by  the  hydrodynamic   equations   of  continuity   and momentum  balance: we shall  see that  this means  they must propagate  as long waves. Any propagation  of a wave from  east to west around the earth would  be  impeded  by  the north-south  continental  boundaries. The  only
latitudes  for  unimpeded  circumpolar  movement are around  the Antarctic continent and in the Arctic basin. Even around Antarctica the connection is  very  restricted  through  the  Drake  Passage  between  Cape  Horn  and Graham  Land.

(2)  Long   waves   travel   at   a   speed   given   by   (water   depth  x  gravitational
acceleration) 5.  Even  in the absence  of barriers  it would  be impossible  for  an Equilibrium  Tide  to  keep up  with  the moon's  tracking,  because  the  oceans are  too  shallow.  Taking  an  average  depth  of  4000 m  the  wave  speed  is 198 m s~\  whereas at  the equator  the sub-lunar  point  travels  westwards  at an  average  speed  of  450 ms"1.  Around  Antarctica,  however,  at  60°S  the
speeds  are  nearly  equal.  At  one  time  it  was  thought  that  the  tides  were generated  in  these  latitudes,  from  where  they  spread  to  other  areas.  This was  supposed  to  explain  the  age  of  the  tide:  the  time  between  new  or  full moon  and  the maximum  observed  tides  in northern  latitudes; however,  we now  know  that  the responses  are more complicated  than  these simple  ideas suggest.

(3)  The  various  ocean  basins  have  their  individual natural modes of  oscillation which  influence  their  responses  to  the  tide  generating  forces.  There  are many  resonant  frequencies,  but  the whole  global  ocean  system  seems to  be near  to  resonance  at  semidiurnal  tidal  frequencies  and  the  observed  tides are substantially larger than  the Equilibrium Tide. The responses to  forcing
at  diurnal  tidal  frequencies  are  much  weaker,  as  shown  in  Figure  4:2  for Ilfracombe.  However,  the  local  responses  of  each  area  of  the  continental shelf  to the driving  by the  ocean  tides  allow  a  different  set of  resonances  to apply.  In  some cases  there  is a  local  amplification  of the diurnal  tides  as  in the  Gulf  of Tongking  and  the Gulf  of Carpentaria  (see Karumba  in  Figure 1:1  and  Castletownsend  in  Figure  4:2).

(4)  Water  movements  are  affected  by  the  rotation  of  the  earth.  The  tendency for  water  movement  to  maintain  a  uniform  direction  in  absolute  space means  that  it  performs  ,a  curved  path  in  the  rotating  frame  of  reference
within  which  we make observations. Alternatively, motion  in a straight  line on  a  rotating  earth  is  curved  in  absolute  space  and  must  be  sustained  by forces  at  right  angles  to  the  motion.  These  effects  are  represented  by  the Coriolis  accelerations  in the  hydrodynamic  equations. The  solutions  to  the equations  show  that  certain  modified  forms  of  wave  motion  are  possible, the  most  important  of  which  have  a  form  described  as  Kelvin  waves.

(5)  The  solid earth  responds elastically to the imposed tidal  forces,  as discussed in  Section  3:2:3. The  extent  of  this  response  is  described  in  terms  of  Love numbers. Although  the response  of the solid earth to the direct tidal  forcing is well described  in  these terms, there are local  effects  due  to the  depression of  shallow-water  areas  and  the  surrounding  land  by  the  tidal  loading.  The
tide measured at  a coastal  station, or  by a pressure sensor on the sea-bed,  is the  difference   between  the  change  in  the  geocentric  position  of  the  sea surface,  and  the  geocentric  position  of  the  land  surface  reference  point.
Altimetry  measurements  give  the  strictly  geocentric  displacements  of  the sea  surface.

For more details consult the paper I provided you. Everything is explained there, including the calculations.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do tides work on a flat earth
« on: June 11, 2018, 02:09:10 AM »
Quote from: SRP
Would you mind to give all your questions again, so I have them all in one place and I try to answer them for both the round and the flat Earth.

Let us do one at a time, for answering several begins to be a chore (as I well know!), and the conversation diverges in a million different directions at once.

Where does the tidal bulge come from? Or more simply, if you'd like: where does the hightide come from?

I found a paper explaining tides in detail for a spherical Earth. It should explain all the questions you have in greater detail than I am able to.
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/119157/1/sea-level.pdf

Since I promised to give you an answer for the flat Earth as well. Here is the explanation given by Rowbotham. If you have a more detailled explanation, please add it.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm#page_158

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do tides work on a flat earth
« on: June 09, 2018, 11:57:57 PM »
Quote from: SRP
By the way I asked you to give me your sources, which you didn't provide. You don't even have a simplified model.
You made no effort to answer the questions I provided, the search for which would likely lead you to the answers you seek.

If you read my post you should have noticed that I did some research trying to answer your questions in a round Earth, while you just ignore my questions completely. That's evidence that you have been idoctrinated. One key point of idoctrination is that you do not question your doctrine. The fact that I looked up your point point saying that the explanation with the moon pulling on Earth doesn't work, shows that I question the explanations given for the round Earth and make an effort finding the most fitting explanation.

You on the other hand are only trying to find contradictions in the round Earth. You don't even bother trying to explain any contradictions I gave you, or answering your own questions. If you are not able to find a contradiction in my answers, or show me that my explanations are wrong, you simply ignore them. That's again evidence that you have been idoctrinated or are ignorant.

To answer one of the questions I asked you about the difference between celestial gravition, I going to use your wiki, unless you provide me with a better explanation (I know you won't, because you probably don't have anything better anyway).
Quote
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

Celestial gravition says that the celestial bodies attract objects of mass. It doesn't explain where it comes from, so I going to assume that it appears out of nowhere and applies to bodies with large masses. If that's the case it's identical to gravity at least for bodies with a very large mass, like the moon and the sun. Then it would also apply to Earth which is also a body with a large mass, otherwise you don't have an explanation, why objects fall to the ground. The universal acceleration is already contradicted in your FAQ and it contradicts the claim of the Earth not moving.

Also the explanation of the tides using celestial gravition is identical to the simplified explanation of the moon pulling on Earth and the oceans. You already explained yourself that that doesn't work and I admitted that you are right and gave you a more accurate model.

In conclusion, we are back at the beginning and the tides are still not answered for a flat Earth at all. I highly doubt it's ever going to be answered for a flat Earth. For the round Earth on the other hand it's not yet fully understood, but at least there is a somewhat working explanation, which is a lot more than your answer which only says "look it up", which by the way I did for the round Earth.

Would you mind to give all your questions again, so I have them all in one place and I try to answer them for both the round and the flat Earth. You don't seem to bother to answer your own questions anyway, so I'm just going to assume that you don't know the answers. You didn't even bother showing me where you got your information from.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do tides work on a flat earth
« on: June 09, 2018, 04:52:41 AM »
Quote
Those are gross simplifications which would only work if the earth were made completely of water.
You are right about the videos, they are simplified and explain an outdated model.
Here is a better video explaining the tides. It's also simplified. If you want, I try to find a scientific paper about it going into more details.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

By the way I asked you to give me your sources, which you didn't provide. You don't even have a simplified model.

Quote
You can't have high tide on one side of New Zealand and low tide on the other if you believe the tide works in such a primary school illustration-manner.
You are right the simplified model does not explain it. I found some explanation for it, but I see if I can find a more detailed explanation.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/tides.htm
What's your explanation? You use that as argument, so you should be able to explain it on a flat Earth, otherwise your explanation can't be accepted for the same reason.

Quote
One cannot present a purely hypothetical model which bears no resemblance to real world observations, and use it as evidence against some other model.
I did not use it as evidence against the flat Earth model, it just a simplified (as you noticed yourself) explanation of how tides work on a spherical Earth. As stated before, it's outdated and doesn't exactly work like that. You by the way haven't even provided that.

By the way flat Earth model is a purely hypothetical model which bears no resemblance to real world observations. For example it contradicts the observations of the sun moving by 15° per hour anywhere in the world.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
It also contradicts the observations of lunar and solar eclipses.
For the lunar eclipse it uses a shadow object, which can't be observed for some reason. It can't be because it's being out shined by the sun, that contradicts the observations of Venus and Mercury. It also can't be invisible, because an invisible object doesn't cast a shadow.
The solar eclipse doesn't work having the moon and the sun of similar size and distance. The shadow of an object appears larger the closer it is to a light source. Yet the shadow of the moon doesn't increase in size.

Another major contradiction of observation is the continent of Antarctica. A 24 hour daytime has been observed in Antarctica.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
It's funny that flat earthers like to say that they can go to Arctic and observe the sun, but they can't go to Antarctica. What if the Arctic 24 sun is faked in exactly the same way you claim the Antarctica sun is faked, and Antarctica is actually the real one? Pretty much any argument you can come up with can easily be used the other way around.
Using the Antarctic treaty as an argument doesn't work, because it does not forbid anyone to go there. Also saying that there are soldiers or so preventing you from going there is against the treaty.
Quote
On May 3, 1958, the United States proposed to the other 11 nations participating in the IGY that a conference be held, based on the points of agreement that had been reached in informal discussions:
(1) that the legal status quo of the Antarctic Continent remain unchanged;
(2) that scientific cooperation continue;
(3) that the continent be used for peaceful purposes only.
https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/193967.htm

Space observations are also contradicting a flat Earth. In space everything with sufficient mass becomes somewhat spherical following the laws of physics. Why don't those laws apply to Earth? Saying that Earth is different is no explanation. Stars, planets and moons are also different, yet they are spherical. Asteroids also follow the laws of physics, but they are simple too small to look spherical. The uneven surface simply has a larger effect relative to their small size. Just like a putting a 1cm rock on a football makes a larger difference than putting the football on your house.

What causes the water on a flat earth to rise and fall. The thing that causes tides is the gravity of the moon but flat earthers don't believe gravity exist. So how do you explain the tides then.

Celestial gravitation.

What's the difference between celestial gravitation on a Flat Earth and the gravitational force caused by the moon and the sun on a spherical Earth? Where does celestial gravitation come from? If it's also related to mass like gravity, why wouldn't Earth have it, which has obviously more mass than the moon?

I ask again, can you give me the sources where you got your information from?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do tides work on a flat earth
« on: June 08, 2018, 04:11:27 PM »
Here are some videos explaining how tides work on a spherical Earth.
The first only considers the moon, the second includes the sun as well.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

@Ski do you have something like that? A video or a text explaining the tides on a flat earth which pictures or animations, which would make it easier to understand.
For a spherical Earth I can find a lot of information, but not much for a flat Earth. Would you mind showing the sources, you think explain the tide on a flat Earth the best.

Quote
I do not know the distance between the moon and sun nor between the earth and either.

Your wiki says both the moon and the sun are about 3000 miles (4828,032 km) above Earth.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon

If you don't know, why didn't you read the flat earth wiki?

Just for comparison, in the spherical model the sun is about  1.496×10^8 km, and the moon about 384,399 km away.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The round earth model is so damn accurate.
« on: June 08, 2018, 02:56:12 PM »
Quote
There is the mail address mail@humberbridge.co.uk on page http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/administration.php and everyone can write and ask about the matter as I did. And the answer was following:

There is no evidence of this, unfortunately, it is merely a theoretical
and, I have been told, rather inprecise calculation.

Yours sincerely

Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

Humber Bridge Board
Ferriby Road
Hessle
East Yorkshire
HU13 0JG

The same guy said Earth has a curvature. His reply is posted on your wiki.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Humber_Bridge

Quote
Thank you for your recent email.
   
    The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the
    centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an
    inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of
    the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
   
    The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the
    apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
   
    Regards
   
    Peter Hill
    General Manager & Bridgemaster

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Defend your model
« on: May 15, 2018, 12:03:08 AM »
If you don't have model at all, then explain to me, what is flat Earth? What do you have, except for questions about a spherical Earth? Which by the way can be answered.
You don't consistently explain any observations, and those you do explain contradict others. For example the sinking ship effect and the bedfort level experiment. The sinking ship needs refraction, and the bedford level only works ignoring it. Or the universal acceleration, which contradicts your claim of the Earth not moving.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Defend your model
« on: May 14, 2018, 11:48:28 AM »
I found a YouTube video made by GreaterSapien. He asks 11 questions to flatearthers.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Question 1: Where is Venus right now?
Question 2: Why do the sun and the moon rise and set the way they do?
Question 3: Why does daylight in Earth have the pattern it does?
Question 4: What holds the sun and moon in place and moves them?
Question 5: Why do you see the same face and phase of the moon no matter where you are?
Question 6: Why does a lunar eclipse happen? How does the Earth's shadow go across the face of the moon? If it's not the Earth shadow, what is it?
Question 7: How does a solar eclipse happen?
Question 8: Why do the sun and moon have spherical shapes?
Question 9: What powers the sun?
Question 10: Why has no one gone to the other side of Earth?
Question 11: Where is a definitive model of the flat earth system?

In this video the flatearther TheMorgile "answers" the questions. Caution: high chance of facepalming.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
In short his answers are: "It's irrelevant, we only need to prove that Earth has no curvature."

For comparison the answers given by the current models.

Question 1:
https://www.solarsystemscope.com/

Question 2:
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question14.html

Question 3:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Question 4:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System

Question 5:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Question 6:
See previous answer.

Question 7:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Question 8:
See question 4.

Question 9:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_fusion

Question 10:
In the current model, they did.

Question 11:
For the Earth alone, you could use Google Earth as model, or a globe.
For the solar system:
https://www.solarsystemscope.com/

So I ask you to answer those questions. But first let see what your websites say.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki

Question 2: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun

Question 5: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

Question 6: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse
Quote
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
That contradicts the observations of Venus and Mercury. The shadow object also can't be Venus or Mercury, they simply appear too small.

Question 10:
Quote
Is There An Edge To The Earth?
The Flat Earth Society, along with previous notable flatists such as Samuel Shenton and S. Rowbotham, believe there is no end to the Earth and that it continues indefinitely. The only edge to the earth is the one you are standing on. Some math describing this can be found in our blog article The Mathematics of an Infinite Earth

For the other questions, I couldn't even find an answer.

Some other videos to enjoy.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So flatearthers defend your model. To make it clearer, I'm asking you to show me that your model works. I'm not asking for you to ask questions about the spherical Earth.

I hope that inspires some flatearthers to at least look for answers in your own model.

17
Space travel can of course be legitimate but the moon landings by actual people was totally fake.

Getting to the moon today is considerably cheaper than was was quoted back in the 60s, and with todays technology, much safer

Does anyone see a problem with sending men to the moon and back on computers with less processing power than a birthday greeting card?

Do people seriously believe a man like Richard Nixon is honest?

Everything we send now might be real, but it says a lot that they aren't prepared and have no desire to send people 'back' to the moon. You could seriously offset the cost by bringing back some moon rocks. You could probably break even or even profit from such a sale! yet, zero interest and millions of volunteers who probably couldn't give 2 shits if they couldn't return and have to die up there. I'm sure the selfie and the 'likes' on Facebook will be worth it

For your reading pleasure. It gives explanations to pretty much any argument you could come up with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

18
But I do wonder what this has to do with "The Impossible Workload of Creating a Round Earth".

It was most likely a reply to my earlier comment, where I used the moon landing as an example that the Russians wouldn't help the Americans to lie about the Earth being spherical.

19
Even if we assume that covering the Earth being flat wouldn't cost anything, there are other problems about lying about the shape of the earth. There is no benefit.

Going back to the cold war. Assuming Earth was flat, why would both the Russians (Soviets back at that time) and Americans try to cover it up instead of contradicting each other? If one of them was lying, it would be benficial for the other one to prove them wrong. Yet nothing of that sort ever happened. It's the same with the moon landing for example. If America never reached the moon, Russia would have tried to prove it. They both were at similar technological level. In fact Russia beat America in sending the first satellite (Sputnik, 4 October 1957), the first animal (Sputnik 2, 3 November 1957 with the dog Laika) and the first human (Vostok 1, 12 April 1961 with Yuri Gagarin) to space. If those were faked, Americans would have complained and proved them wrong.

Even if you believed that they are trying to cover up some secret lab in Antartica or whatever, why would they need to do that? Except for a few scientists, there is no one traveling to Antartica anyway.

Air travel companies also do not benfit from the shape of the Earth. For them it wouldn't matter at all. They just bring people and goods from A to B and get paid for that. The same for traveling via ship.

The only people, I can imagine, profiting about lying about the shape of the Earth are those of the flat earth society. By convincing people that Earth is flat and not spherical, they can gain new members and earn money. For everyone else I can't think of a way they would benefit. If a flatearthler can come up with some benefits, feel free to post them here.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 2 questions for flat earth people
« on: May 08, 2018, 11:09:54 PM »
It has already done. Countless flat earth believer have sent high altitude ballons and proved the earth is flat.

More question?

Can you post those videos? Every single video I found, shows that Earth is round, but I couldn't find any showing that Earth is flat. I also couldn't find any photos or videos showing a flat Earth from a high altitude, but dozens showing a round Earth. For example this beautiful video. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Assuming every video and photo is faked, what happened to the original photos and videos? Can you explain how those videos and photos were faked without just saying they used fisheye lenses or photoshop? There are thousands of leaked photos, videos and documents of many different agencies and companies, but again I couldn't find any leaked photo showing a flat Earth.

Pages: [1]