1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]

« on: September 05, 2008, 08:12:00 AM »

Due to the chaotic orbit of the moon, any eclipses are very hard to accurately predict, in fact, technically impossible. Solving a n-body problem and thus finding an equation to predict lunar eclipses would be impossible, and even if it were, the result would be too complex to be of any practical value.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gasses

« on: September 03, 2008, 07:44:05 AM »

Unfortunately the atmosphere would be the same in either case.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What do FErs think of Google Earth?

« on: September 03, 2008, 07:36:24 AM »

the higher detail photos are taken from planes, and only some by google

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof

« on: September 02, 2008, 05:47:51 AM »

I teach at Oxford.

Which college and faculty professor? Care for a chat sometime?

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Invalid Inductive Argument

« on: September 02, 2008, 05:44:40 AM »

Can I just point out that no naturally occuring piece of land on either model is perfectly flat, no matter what size. even a 'perfect' silicon wafer isn't perfectly flat.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 01:14:09 PM »

The distance to the sun and the moon can be calculated simply using radar/perspective from two or more points/infra red heat measurements etc. Universities all over the world frequently conduct experiments to find the distance to the moon. Neither of these two distances should be up for debate. Yes they change marginally from time to time, but only a small amount due to an elliptical orbit.
From these distances the size of each can be found using a pinhole camera at home.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'm going to try and ask some questions ... seriously...without rediculing you..

« on: August 10, 2008, 10:15:28 AM »

I'm not supposed to take sides in this argument but it is easy to see that the FE believers are at a disadvantage.

Not only do FE believers have weak arguments, they also don't seem able to follow logical argument and whilst a topic may start with one argument put towards them, when unable to suitably respond to this they either argue something else entirely, point to other equally vague answers or result in attempting to insult the RE believers.

Unfortunately the RE believers get exasperated and give up usually or reply with insults.

As far as i've been made aware one of the initial reasons for believing in a flat earth was to reassure people that the earth was in the centre of the universe. However this has now been made irelevant after introducing the idea of a universal accelerator.

Because of this it is very hard to see where the FE movement plans to go with its ideas and is either very poorly led, or indeed, a group of people who exist purely to argue with others.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'm going to try and ask some questions ... seriously...without rediculing you..

« on: August 10, 2008, 09:14:02 AM »

There is nowhere in this forum that sufficiently answers any of these questions. I am currently looking around this forum as as part of a project to understand the FE idea and there is not one topic which would ever cast doubt on there being a round earth,

I understand some of the underlying messages i.e. not to base all your beliefs purely on what you are told, but to try and explore the world for yourself and draw your own conclusions

However after several days reading around I can conclude that not one member seriously believes that the earth is flat and that most people are here to try and ridicule others or to feel superior to others, where best to start than by arguing with those who appear clueless about the world around them.

Take this away with you. If you don't believe what you are taught, don't accept it at face value, explore the idea and make a conclusion of your own. Look at Darwin, Newton, Einstein. No-one here doesn't know who they are or what they achieved. I hope.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Triangulation!

« on: August 10, 2008, 08:50:44 AM »

Read the FAQ.

I have read it, but you admit in it that you don't know any motives or reason for NASA being part of this conspiracy. For this reason you shouldn't use it as the basis to any of your arguments as it appears to be something you have completely fabricated to help back up your arguments. You don't see nearly as many examples on this forum of REers fabricating stuff to use as evidence. Apart from the things, i.e. photos from space, which you claim to be fabricated by NASA for reasons you can't even state.

And I still want to know how near polar orbit satellites work.

They either slingshot back and forth across the diameter of our local area or they don't exist. I haven't really put much research into that subject.

They definitely do exist, without them a huge amount of information about the earth we do know and use everyday to predict weather etc wouldn't exist.
And think about how much power it would take to accelerate then decelerate the satellite everytime it reached the edges in order to slingshot it back again.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain gravimeters

« on: August 10, 2008, 07:44:43 AM »

some parts of the earth accelerate faster than others, clearly.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Triangulation!

« on: August 10, 2008, 07:36:49 AM »

oh yes, this NASA thing. bearing in mind that regardless of where space is in relation to the earth, be it above it or around it NASA would still have to obtain funding etc and would still want to explore it etc any of these arguments that NASA are behind some conspiracy shouldn't be used until they are at least founded or motivation for it has been put forward.

And I still want to know how near polar orbit satellites work.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Triangulation!

« on: August 10, 2008, 07:16:46 AM »

Putting aside the fact that the sun being a 'spotlight' is the FE believers weakest argument/idea, and should be thought out again, the photos taken from a great height show too much terrain relief at the edges. From a great height the relief of the land can be seen around the edges of the visible earth more than should be seen on a FE.
For example if you were to take a bumpy basketball and lay it out flat the texture couldn't be seen as strongly as can be seen around the edges of a round bouncy ball.
As you get to a height, yes you can see the edges of mountainous regions, however if you were to also bend those regions away from you (i.e. using curvature of the earth if it existed) you would see even more of the sides of them.

However considering this topic started based around the satellites and orbits i'd still like to know how near polar orbit satellites work.

Also, don't think to much more about that skipping stone theory Tom, Firstly looking at a satellite would suggest that they couldn't bounce, they are too fragile, think about fatigue within their design lifetimes for a start. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, stones can skim on water due to surface tension, air exhibits no such tension at the edge of the atmosphere or between atmospheric layers so this couldn't work.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Triangulation!

« on: August 10, 2008, 06:16:55 AM »

Lets suppose you were to triangulate the position of a near polar orbit satellite travelling down away from the north pole towards the outer edge of the earth. (Tracking of the positions of satellites happens all the time).
Would the satellite have to travel incredibly quickly back to the opposite end of the disc in order for the tracking station to see it as having passed 'across' the south pole? Or do these near polar orbit satellites not exist?

One possible explanation is a shortcut from one edge of the disc to the opposite end which these satellites could perhaps take to allow a NP orbit.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Problem with FE model of stars

« on: August 10, 2008, 05:41:01 AM »

I am led to believe that the FE model of the earth and stars is that of a disc upon which we live (the earth) and directly above this disc 3000 miles up is the sun and moon and then above this are the stars. This would mean that at any one time from wherever you looked on the disc the same stars would be seen and take a similar pattern, whether you were looking from the southern hemisphere (or outward of the FE equator) of the northern hemisphere (inward of the FE equator).

If this were correct how come stars observed in the southern hemisphere are different from those observed in the northern hemisphere at any given moment. Bear in mind that stars can be observed during the day so any idea of the stars patterns changing every 12 hours can't be correct.

Let us suppose that the FE model was correct. In this scenario the same stars and similar patterns would be seen at any moment at any point on the earths surface. They are not.

Let us now suppose that the RE model was correct. In this scenario the stars and patterns seen would be completely different when looking from opposite ends of the planet. They are.


Because I am open minded and like to hear all sides of a debate I'd like to know how the FE model explains how the stars seen are different at different locations on the earth.