1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Please Explain.

« on: May 12, 2012, 01:10:23 AM »

Really. George Castanza. You are trying to tell people off with an image of him... nice.

And I will explain it to you ...

In your explaination ... you have to remember that once you hit the poles . there is a polar shift change. so technically you WOULD fly south once you reached the pole. Then North again after Antarctica.

In the flat earth theory.. one would fly north... and again not straight up into the atmosphere, but North on the compass. Since we are bound by electromagnetism, eventually the plane would curve south at the pole and instead of loopty looeying around ... the plane would naturally curve south, then fly to the antarctic where again due to electromagneticism, the plane would curve north and end up at Denver again.

The diagram is EXACTLY similar to what NASA uses when tracking shuttles, sattelites ect.

So in your theory, Theoretically you would fly North the entire way, yet acually you do fly south....

In my theory, i would fly north, south and then north again. just like your theory, but not flipping over the tip of the world ... i think the north pole is a no-fly zone anyway
anymore brain busters?

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: INS disproves FE.

« on: May 12, 2012, 12:53:40 AM »

One satellite in a fixed location supports a disc/flat earth theory. If the Earth was a globe.. it would seem 2 or 3 would be needed to allow such precise measurements to be transmitted to a sub or plane at any given time anywhere on the earth.

the three points create a triangle. The basis for GPS. and/or earth to air missles.

I would argue that the original point of INS disproves FE... is incorrect. If anything, it supports it.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite Media?

« on: May 12, 2012, 12:46:29 AM »

Satellites Do Exist.

Yet they don't rotate around the globe. They are fixed in one location. If they were not fixed.. then there would need to be 3 or 4 placed around the globe. Instead, it is in ONE FIXED AREA. It allows the TRIANGULATION of: 1. The dish on your roof 2. The cable, military HQ speaking to the Satellite. 3. The Satellite in the Sky.

TRIANGLES do not have curved sides. Only ONE Satellite is needed for the entire earth. Not one on one side and one on the other. And don't give me that bounce signals off each other arguement. That just tells me that you don't know anything about satellites.

Besides Sprint, Google and the Military.. who else has a satellite? They are rare, expensive and it takes moving mountains to get the go ahead to send one up.....

Also, it takes full disclosure that the earth is indeed flat

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.

« on: May 12, 2012, 12:40:36 AM »

The horizon is curved.

Yes. that is a good observation. 

I find that those that believe everything their favorite teacher in elementary taught them.. seem to overthink things.

The reason why we PERCEIVE the horizon to be a curve... is because our EYEBALL is curved. You know, the LENS our brain uses to interepret our visible spectrum.

When you look through a drop of water, you can see an entire house in that drop. Does that REALLY MEAN that the house is a miniture tiny piece of wood?

Common Sense .. 

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: INS disproves FE.

« on: May 12, 2012, 12:31:50 AM »

The reason why it is able to move in a 'straight' line is because of GPS satellite. The satellite allows the submarine to be a point... the destination is a point... and then the Satellite in the sky gives it it's TRIANGULATION. 

Do triangles have curved sides?  Where's my geometry book from 10th grade.. hang on..

brb

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hubble data

« on: May 12, 2012, 12:26:22 AM »

The hubble data is indeed real.

The data that is sent back to earth has to be looked at with common sense. First, remember the hubble is still within the earth's orbit. Only one other space trip that happened this year is the only (supposed) other trip outside earth's orbit besides the moon landing. Second, Light is very complex. It bends, curves, blindsides, outshines, reflects, etc. So the hubble could take 10,000 shots of one area with soooooooo many different settings.. that it would be different data with different images, yet it's still one point. Which then leads to the logic that even after 10000 shots, do we really know what the heck is really in that one spot? Third, we don't think the universe is tiny. In fact the universe is vast. One of the foundational ideals of flat earthers is: The Earth Is the Center of the Universe. The cosmos hold a vast array of points of light that we see as stars, and fact is other planets do exist. The planets exist on different planes. And that planet is also disk/flat like.. and it too is the center of that planet's universe.

Think about it like atoms. Can an oxygen atom go into the 'universe' or inside a hydrogen atom?   

Oxygen and Hydrogen are the center of their atom universe. Which I ensure is also vast.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica

« on: May 12, 2012, 12:13:17 AM »

As of 2012 the CIA shows an approximation (no error given) of the Antarctica Coastline to be 18,000.

The question that really needs to be answered is.. according to Flat Earth Theory .. how much land area does Antactica constitue?

Then you can do the circumference calculation.

Your math is fuzzy... it taking into consideration 100% of the Earth's land area.. that's why the numbers are so off..

duhhhh