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 - Big N

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Brainwashing
« on: April 26, 2007, 07:31:55 PM »
The thread Big 3 of RE disproves a flat earth, and it makes the round earth look pretty believable at the same time.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Big 3 of RE
« on: April 24, 2007, 05:35:22 PM »
You people do realize that the Big 3 of RE are enough of proofs for round earth, right? I'm surprised that both the flat earthers and the round earthers are ignoring this thread. Flat earthers ignore it because they can't explain it, and round earthers ignore it for who-knows-what reasons.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Horizon Hoax
« on: April 24, 2007, 05:32:26 PM »
Wasn't it agreed a while ago that pictures couldn't be used for supporting either side of the argument?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Big 3 of RE
« on: April 19, 2007, 06:53:03 PM »
Why should the light's affect be a line across its diameter? Not all points of the world experience 12 hours of daylight. That's another myth imparted to you by your first grade school teacher.

A little while back on this very forum I timed the length of my day at my latitude to 10.5 hours. Any quick search on the internet could confirm that the length of the day changes with different locations.

Google it.

I agree that not all points of the world experience 12 hours of daylight. That's because of the tilt of the earth's axis. When the earth is tilted toward the sun, the northern hemisphere is exposed to the sun slightly longer than 12 hours, and as you travel south, the time exposed to the sun gradually decreases. The opposite is true when the earth's axis is pointing away from the sun.

I really should find a better picture that shows the earth's tilt.

Anyway, you timing the length of the day to be 10.5 hours is perfectly reasonable. From previous posts it's obvious that you live in the northern hemisphere, and you said "a little while back" you made the timing, so that means it was winter the earth was pointing away from the sun, so it was receiving less sunlight.

Now, the argument that I'm trying to get it is that there would be a straight line down which everyone in the world was receiving the same amount of sun (not necessarily the same intensity, mind you). Also, this line does not follow any latitudinal lines because of the earth's tilt. But there is a line, which is why people on the north half of the world will have the same sunlight as people in the middle and people at the south half.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Big 3 of RE
« on: April 19, 2007, 05:58:39 PM »
Just let the guy speak for himself.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2 maps...any truth?
« on: April 19, 2007, 05:46:38 PM »
Geez, the guy was just asking a question.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Big 3 of RE
« on: April 19, 2007, 05:41:15 PM »
well we already know your answers to 1 and 3:
-all foucault pendulum data ever is faked and/or wrong, the thousands of people who have seen them, and the fact that their rotation can be perfectly predicted from any location on round earth from the poles to the equator is coincidence/due to faulty experimentation procedures
-all southern hemisphere flights are late but nobody notices/blames it on weather/it happens/wind streams and the rotating earth below accounts for 800 mph, in both directions, somehow, if in fact they were predictable (note we can book flights months and months in advance)

so i guess #2 is the one i haven't really got an answer from you yet...the one with the rays hitting the earth...why is the divide between night and day a line, and not a circle as spotlight sun theory would suggest?

He can't talk about those. I already talked about why those reasons won't work. Foucault pendulums and travel times/distances are perfect proofs for RE/against FE.

However, the best proof is the sun example. On a round earth, there is clearly a line, and on a flat earth there is clearly a circle.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Big 3 of RE
« on: April 19, 2007, 05:39:53 PM »
WHAT. THE. HELL are all of you talking about!?!? I post 3 major reasons that at least disprove FE and at most prove RE. Tom looks at one of the pictures and asks "then how the hell is there 24-hour sunlight sometimes and 24-hour daylight sometimes at the poles?" Fair enough. Round earth believers tell him about how the earth's axis is tilted (not shown in the picture) so that half the year is is pointing towards the sun and half the year it is pointing away from the sun.

Then this whole discussions pops up about magnetic poles, compasses and gyroscopes. WWWWUUHHHHH1!?!? Where did that come from?

Oh and that reminds me. If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't post until you do. I saw a couple posts that made me go "WUUHHH1!?!?!?"

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The game between the FE'er and the RE'er
« on: April 19, 2007, 09:13:42 AM »
Is anything in that book "testable?" or is it just theories?

i thought so.

They actually are testable experiments. It's just that the guy never varied his variables, so he doesn't know if what he concluded for an experiement was universal or if it happened just under those conditions. It's almost as if he just picked and chose data that matched his theories.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's convert some non-believers
« on: April 19, 2007, 09:02:42 AM »
No no, we don't need anymore argument about this. All the reasons for someone to know that the earth is round is found in the thread Big 3 of RE.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA's picture factory
« on: April 19, 2007, 09:00:51 AM »
Yet still no one can prove they aren't fake.

No one can prove they are fake.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: (RE'ers only) Just a thought.
« on: April 18, 2007, 08:27:22 PM »
No no, they don't even have to believe FE any more. Check out Big 3 of RE for evidence against FE and for RE that have never been refuted.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Physical Evidence
« on: April 18, 2007, 08:25:39 PM »
We don't even need anymore discussion trying to disprove FE in any way. Check out The Big 3 of RE for all the reasons we'd ever need to prove a spherical earth.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Big 3 of RE
« on: April 18, 2007, 10:40:42 AM »
You know, I don't really know much about the Cavendish experiment. I haven't got that far in physics, yet. If you could post a thread explaining that, it would be nice.

[edit]
I looked up Cavendish experiment on Wikipedia and it only said that he found the gravitational constant. It doesn't say anything about him finding out that matter bent space-time.

15
Flat Earth Debate / The Big 3 of RE
« on: April 18, 2007, 10:28:27 AM »
Over the past few months of debate on these boards, Iíve found that there are three irrefutable evidences of a spherical earth. The first is the Foucault pendulum, the second is the fact that when the sun illuminates 50% of the earth there is a distinct longitudinal line separating the area of earth in night from the area of earth in day, and third is the fact that trips in the southern hemisphere would be stretched to unbelievably long distances in a flat earth when in fact flight times show that they arenít.

Foucault pendulum
The Foucault pendulum is a large pendulum that is allowed to freely swing in one direction. Over the course of a day, it will turn, much like in this picture:


Here is a description from the Griffith Observatory in California as to how it works:

Quote
The 240-pound brass ball, suspended by a cable 40 feet long, swings in a constant direction while the Earth turns beneath it. The pendulum is mounted to a bearing in the rotunda ceiling that does not turn with the building as it rotates with the Earth. A ring magnet at the bearing gives a little tug on each swing of the pendulum to keep the pendulum in motion. As the day passes, the pendulum knocks over pegs set up in the pendulum pit and indicates the progress of rotation.

If you place a Foucault pendulum at the North Pole, it will complete one 360-degree clockwise revolution every 24 hours. If you place a Foucault pendulum at the South Pole, it will complete one counterclockwise revolution every 24 hours. If you place a Foucault pendulum at the equator, it will not revolve at all because it would be swinging in tandem with the earthís rotation. At other latitudes, the plane of oscillation will be relative to the pendulumís position on earth (for example, a Foucault pendulum in France will only rotate 280 degrees) with pendulums in the northern hemisphere turning clockwise and pendulums in the southern hemisphere turning counterclockwise.

Thus, Foucault pendulums follow a highly predictable path. This path is proportional to the sine of the pendulumís latitude. So, for example, a pendulum at latitude 30 degrees will rotate 180 degrees, since the sine of 30 is .5 and .5 of 360 degrees is 180.

The fact that the Foucault pendulum does exactly what calculations say it does means that its revolutions can not be counted as merely coincidence. Other arguments against Foucault pendulums include the fact that heat and wind may make the pendulum move in its path. This is not true for numerous reasons. First, Foucault pendulums are located throughout the world and varying environments. Heat differs everywhere, and does not follow a highly predictable path. Heat is also not constant, so it can not make the Foucault pendulum follow the highly predictable path that it does follow constantly. The same goes for wind. Wind differs everywhere and could not make a pendulum follow a highly predictable path. Also, air molecules that carry heat and wind do not have nearly enough mass to force a huge pendulum (the one at Griffith, for example is 240 pounds) to make a revolution in 24 hours. Itís simply momentum physics.

Another argument against Foucault pendulums is that many of them are powered by magnets to keep them swinging, and the magnets may actually cause them to travel their revolutionary path. But you must remember that the earliest Foucault pendulums were not powered by magnets, but they still followed the path that they were predicted to follow.

Thus, the Foucault pendulum is, at most, evidence of a spherical earth, and, at least, a proof against a flat earth.

Sunlight Hitting the Earth
People who live in Eastern China get the same amount of sunlight as people living in Western Australia. People living in Seattle get the same amount of sunlight as those living in San Diego. People who live in southern Greenland get the same sun as people living in southern Brazil.

Kinda like this picture:


This is only possible on a spherical earth.

On a flat earth, the sun illuminates a circular region on the earth in the flat earth model, like this:

However, in reality, there is a linear edge between day and night, not a curved one.

Remember, I could give a rat's ass what time it is and what time zone a country is in. Time zones follow staggered paths and donít necessarily follow how much light is hitting the earth at a certain time. All I care about is the actual light that's hitting the earth at a given moment.

Southern Hemisphere Distances
Hereís kojiís research:
Quote
Easter Island is about 1/3 of the way across the ocean between Chile and New Zealand. On an RE map, Easter Island is about 2000 miles off the coast of Chile. On an FE map, given how far south it is, it would be more like 7500 miles.

(note: I got this very rough figure by assuming that the RE circumference of the earth would be the earth's circumference at the equator, and the earth just spread outward from there...FEer please correct me if this is not your model)

I have used www.lan.com to quote me some times for a flight between Santiago, Chile, and Easter Island. I am not sure that the link will work since I put in dates and everything and the URL may expire, but if it doesn't I invite you to start off from www.lan.com and "book" your own flight between these two cities to verify my find.

https://www.lan.com/cgi-bin/compra/paso2.cgi?session_id=xy236771176529079_5567OJY74F&rand_check=1194674.40950768&otras_ciudades=&num_segmentos_interfaz=2&from_city1=SCL&to_city1=IPC&from_city2=IPC&to_city2=SCL&fecha1_dia=02&fecha1_anomes=2007-05&fecha2_dia=10&fecha2_anomes=2007-05&nadults=1&nchildren=0&ninfants=0&tipo_paso2=flex&flex=0&fechas=2007-05-02%7C2007-05-10

It quotes departure 16:45 arrival 20:25 for a travel time of 5:40 in a 767.
In RE, that's about 352mph (~570 km/h), slightly faster because the quote times involve takeoff and landing, taxiing, etc
In FE, that's over 1300 mph (~2100 km/h), again slightly faster because of taxiing.

A Boeing 767's maximum cruise speed is 540 mph (840 km/h) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

This flight is ONLY possible in RE.

It was argued that jet streams help push the jet faster so that it can reach the speeds calculated above. This is wrong for a number of reasons.

First, and most obvious, the northern hemisphere has jet streams, also. This would make flights in the northern hemisphere faster, as well. So, if jet streams did, in fact, make jets go faster, then there would still be a large discrepancy between northern hemisphere flights and southern hemisphere flights in a flat earth.

Second, planes can measure their airspeed in numerous ways. This site: http://www.womanpilot.com/past%20issue%20pages/2000%20issues/jan%20feb%202000/airspeed.htm explains exactly how airspeed is measured. If a plane was traveling as fast as calculated above, then the pilot and everyone on board would know, according to their instruments.

Third, there is not way jet streams can make up for over 800 miles per hour. Iíll use a quote from koji:

Quote
not true because of my point about the plane because purposely designed to streamline THROUGH air. If a plane is in an air stream of 500 mph, it might actually help out the plane only a few mph, nowhere near 500. Therefore to help out 800 mph, the wind would have to be going tens of thousands of mph.

For example...if you are driving your car into heavy winds (say 50 mph) and you are cruising along at 50 mph, are you going 0 mph? No, of course not, because the shape of the car is to AVOID air resistance. Planes are also designed for this.

Otherwise, how the heck would any plane fly the return journey, into the wind?

Also, if you were driving a car in the direction of heave winds (say 50 mph) and you were cruising along at 50 mph, were you going 100 mph? No, of course not, because the shape of the car is to AVOID air resistance.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: easter island cruise
« on: April 18, 2007, 08:37:11 AM »

for example...if you are driving your car into heavy winds (say 50 mph) and you are cruising along at 50 mph, are you going 0 mph? no, of course not, because the shape of the car is to AVOID air resistance. planes are also designed for this.

otherwise, how the heck would any plane fly the return journey, into the wind?

awesome analogy.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why no round Earth?
« on: April 18, 2007, 08:24:44 AM »
Has the original question "Why no round earth?" been answered yet? It probably has over these past 10 pages, but I can't find it. Could someone repost it?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: New proof of FE
« on: April 17, 2007, 08:17:59 PM »
Stop posting retarded ass threads. 


QFT

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Other Planets
« on: April 17, 2007, 11:14:27 AM »
Sounds pretty reasonable, toothpaste.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault Pendulum
« on: April 17, 2007, 11:08:56 AM »
This is from the Griffith Observatory web site:

Quote
The gently swaying Foucault Pendulum in the W.M. Keck Foundation Central Rotunda has long been a visitor favorite since the building opened in 1935. One of the largest such devices in the world, the fully restored pendulum is actually an elegant scientific instrument which demonstrates the Earth's rotation.

The 240-pound brass ball, suspended by a cable 40 feet long, swings in a constant direction while the Earth turns beneath it. The pendulum is mounted to a bearing in the rotunda ceiling that does not turn with the building as it rotates with the Earth. A ring magnet at the bearing gives a little tug on each swing of the pendulum to keep the pendulum in motion. As the day passes, the pendulum knocks over pegs set up in the pendulum pit and indicates the progress of rotation.

So yes, there is a magnet the keeps the pendulum swaying. The magnet, however, does not make the pendulum turn.

How do you know that only one man in australia says that a Foucault pendulum swings counterclockwise? Do you know everyone who has seen a Foucault pendulum. Do you know everyone who has reported anything on a Foucault pendulum? No, you don't. I don't, either. But I know that when I do a Google search for "Foucault pendulum southern hemisphere" all the web sites that are returned say that Foucault pendulums swing counterclockwise. These sites include both .com sites (from the northern hemisphere) and .au sites (from australia) like http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/pendulumdetails.html.

There are five Foucault pendulums in Australia, two in Argentina, one in Puerto Rico, and one in Antarctica. Considering the number of latitudes these are located at, and the availability of them (except for maybe the one at Antarctica), anyone can go visit them and know exactly how much they are going to turn if they did the right amount of math.

Quote
If one man from the southern hemisphere challenges all of those six billion people do you really think anyone would notice? Would his observations make a drop in the bucket? Do you think anyone in the Northern Hemisphere would CARE what this man saw?

I repeat, these Foucault pendulums are widely observable (except maybe the one in Antarctica). If the Foucault pendulum really didn't work, then more than one man would be talking about how it doesn't work, and eventually people would realize "Hey, this actually doesn't work."

Quote
For decades upon decades people have thought that the Corolis force between hemisphers was real. Snopes recently provided an alysis that debunked it.

Why have people blindly believed in the Corolis force for so long? Because it was simply what they were told and they were too lazy to do experimental study of their own.

Snopes never did any experiment that debunked the Coriolis effect on earth. Snopes did an experiment that debunked the Coriolis effect on water going down a sink  ::). Here's the link: http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp.

I can't believe you, Tom. I just can't believe you. Snopes did an experiment proving that the Coriolis effect doesn't affect water going down toilets and sinks, but you say that Snopes debunked the actual Coriolis effect. You try to be scientific, but you change the facts to match your argument. That's utter cowardice in terms of debate. Utter cowardice. Grow some balls, and don't change what other peoples' experiments found. It's insulting.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Other Planets
« on: April 16, 2007, 10:46:13 PM »
EvilToothpoaste, I think I remember you doing a lot of calculation to prove the round earth a while ago. But now you seem to be doing the opposite. Do you actually believe in flat earth, or are you playing devil's advocate?

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rotation Of A Flat Earth
« on: April 16, 2007, 10:34:12 PM »

TheEngineer is correct. If the centripetal force of a rotating object moving at a constant velocity was really as significant as you claim, then a round earth should have a vast desire to flatten like the spinning of pizza dough.

One thing I believe some people are missing is that the Earth does not have the same rate of rotation of a rapidly spinning tire with mud on it. As an analogy, lets imagine a metallic merry-go-round which rotates at 1/24 of a revolution per hour. A bacterium located towards the rim of the carousel would feel hardly any centripetal action at all.

WHOA WHOA HOLY SHIZNAT!!! I DON'T THINK ENOUGH ATTENTION WAS PAID TO THIS POST!

A merry-go-round rotating at 1/24 of a revolution per hour means nothing. Going from point A to point B on the edge of a merry-go-round that slow means you barely have any velocity. But on earth, going from point A to point B in the same amount of time GREATLY increases your velocity.

This is EXTREMELY basic math right here. Tom can spew crap about Relativity, but he can't even get the basic definition of velocity right? Holy smokes. I've tried to be reasonable on these months on these boards and tried to debate logically and with proof, and I've tried to debate against Tom's logic. But this right here. This is mindblowingly painful.

Tom... you don't know what you're talking about, do you?

And don't take this as a RE vs. FE thing, either. There are plenty of round earth believers on these forums who don't have a basic understanding of physics themselves. But for someone who flaunts scientific authenticity, knowledge, and just that they know for a FACT that the earth is flat, I would have never expected something like this from you. It's astounding.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight Hitting the Earth
« on: April 16, 2007, 10:20:24 PM »
Is there any explanation as to why daylight follows a linear path as opposed to the curved path made obvious by the pictures Gin posted (which are really good examples that I was trying to look for but couldn't find, thanks Gin)?

Or is this, along with the Foucault pendulum, enough of a reason to disprove a flat earth?

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault Pendulum
« on: April 16, 2007, 10:07:02 PM »
So I was reading over all the posts since I have created this thread yesterday (all FIVE PAGES OF POSTS!!), and one thing stuck out to me. Tom said that until he sees an opposite-rotation pendulum in the southern hemisphere, he will remain unconvinced. And videos apparently won't work for him.

Let's try a little logic. A bunch of people in the northern hemisphere say that the Foucault pendulum rotates clockwise in the northern hemisphere (including me, I've seen it at the Griffith Observatory in California). Also, a bunch of people in the southern hemisphere say that the Foucault pendulum rotates counterclockwise in the souther hemisphere.

Now, Tom is saying that the northern hemisphere people are correct, but he is also saying that the southern hemisphere people are wrong. Tom has not even seen a Foucault pendulum in the southern hemisphere, but he says they are wrong anyway.

BUT, if the people in the southern hemisphere were wrong, a lot of people would notice. Word would spread to the northern hemisphere that, hey, Foucault pendulums do actually rotate clockwise. And therefore we would not have so many people believing that the southern hemisphere pendulums rotate counter clockwise and 6 billion people beleiving the earth is round. We do, in fact, know that this is not the case, though.

Foucault pendulums follow a highly predictable path that can be mathematically predicted down to the finest precision anywhere on earth, if the position of the pendulum is known. Claiming that that is a coincidence is like claiming that a2 + b2 = c2 in a right triangle being true is only a coincidence.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault Pendulum
« on: April 15, 2007, 03:53:17 PM »
It's comments like those from Gin and EIRD that make threads spiral off into mindless conversations about crap. This is the third time I've posted the Foucault pendulum argument, because all the other ones spiraled off into mindless chatter. Please stop with the stupid comments, and keep this thread on topic. It's not that hard.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault Pendulum
« on: April 15, 2007, 03:50:34 PM »
To be technical the one I saw in France swung 280 degrees or something like that.  Not a full circle in one day. 
That's exactly what is supposed to happen. At the poles, the pendulums swings 360 degrees because the earth is rotating under it, and at the equator it swings nil because it is swinging with the earth's rotation. Everywhere in between, the pendulum will swing somewhere between 0 degrees and 360 degrees depending on its position relative to the equator/poles.

That is perfect proof of the Foucault pendulum.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why is every excuse a conspiracy
« on: April 15, 2007, 01:33:18 PM »
why is every other post about why every excuse is a conspiracy

WHY

Get over it.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight Hitting the Earth
« on: April 15, 2007, 01:19:22 PM »
No, because the sun illuminates a circular region on the earth in the flat earth model. However, in reality, there is a linear edge between day and night, not a curved one.

I could give a rat's ass what time it is and what time zone a country is in. All I care about is the actual light that's hitting the earth at a given moment.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Sunlight Hitting the Earth
« on: April 15, 2007, 01:07:43 PM »
People who live in Eastern China get the same amount of sunlight as people living in Western Australia. People living in Seattle get the same amount of sunlight as those living in San Diego. People who live in southern Greenland get the same sun as people living in southern Brazil.

Kinda like this picture: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/8/84/Earth-lighting-equinox_EN.png
And this picture: http://www.desksoft.com/EarthTime/etscreenshot_large.jpg

Only possible on a spherical earth.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Foucault Pendulum
« on: April 15, 2007, 12:48:40 PM »
No one has yet explained to me why Foucault pendulums swing in opposite directions in opposite hemispheres.

Also, no one has explained to me why Foucault pendulums swing in a complete circle at the poles but onjly swing in one direction at the equator.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6