61

Flat Earth General / Re: Drop On A Curve Vs A Straight Line Vs Perspective Vs Common Sense

« on: October 04, 2016, 02:21:23 PM »

Look at all that curve in the "After" photo. What are you trying to say? That a picture, or even a person, could misrepresent reality?

Your picture is lacking context. Can you use a telephoto lens to zoom in on a ship that has partially gone over the horizon, and bring it back? Or the sun?

Can I use a telephoto lens to zoom in on a ship that has partially gone over the horizon and bring it back?  Yeah, I think I can 

62

Flat Earth General / Re: Drop On A Curve Vs A Straight Line Vs Perspective Vs Common Sense

« on: October 04, 2016, 02:02:17 PM »

The telephoto lense's awesome power has changed the way we look at the world! 

63

Flat Earth General / Drop On A Curve Vs A Straight Line Vs Perspective Vs Common Sense

« on: October 04, 2016, 01:42:42 PM »

The drop on the round earth is supposed to be as follows:  8 inches first mile, then 32 inches at the second mile, then at 90 miles it jumps to over a mile, then at 6,250 miles, the total drop becomes nearly 5,000 miles, which is about 1,000 miles too much on the round earth model, because the diameter of the earth on their model is less than 8,000 miles. 

O.k., so if you accept that, then you aren't saying that the earth curves 8 inches per mile, because over 6,250 miles, that would only add up to a total drop of less than eight tenths of a mile and round earthers are claiming a drop of nearly 4,000 miles, over just 1/4 of the earth's circumference (assuming it is round). 

Alright, so if your perspective is supposed to change, based on where you are on the ball and that model is actually correct (enough for government work), then you would only observe 8 inches of drop, for the first mile in any direction.  Of course, with telephoto lenses, we don't.   

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

64

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: October 04, 2016, 12:26:44 PM »

Regardless of the 8 inch formula, if you want to prove a round earth, you have to account for a drop of nearly four thousand miles, over the course of just over six thousand miles, which boils down to an average drop of nearly 8 inches per foot, not per mile.  Those are the numbers we have, so somehow you have to account for that.

65

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: October 04, 2016, 12:18:15 PM »

O.k, so GRAVITY is silly.  But, if I believed in occult forces, that were magically part of our everyday lives, not in an esoteric or fringy sense, but in an obvious, fundamental and ubiquitous sense, then I might not think gravity was so weird. 

66

Flat Earth Believers / Re: Favorite Youtube Flat Earthers

« on: August 07, 2016, 10:38:22 AM »

My favorites are: 

PBrane (pretty much everything) 

ODD Reality (formerly ODD TV, I think he's done about 3 or 4 flat earth documentaries) 

I like Eric Dubay's stuff

Know The Truth's (flat earth proofs) 

67

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: August 07, 2016, 10:28:22 AM »

This was a very tangential response.  And why did you include "wars" in there?

Yeah, we have those other things, but construction and agriculture (and travel, if by travel you mean vehicles and other tehnical/mechanical aspects of it) didn't come to us by "common sense."  These things are continuously refined as we acquire more specific knowledge about physical sciences and then implement them.  Knowledge of slash and burn agriculture or placing counterweight structures in buildings to withstand high winds, for example, doesn't just come to us out of nowhere.  It comes to us as we continue to learn more and build upon prior knowledge. 

In other words, it's "common sense" that common sense won't necessarily tell us about a whole bunch of things, like why things fall, how far away the sun is, what the shape of the earth is, etc.

This was a very tangential response.  And why did you include "wars" in there?

I'd like to think that if all the Flat Earthers do have it right, that everything we have experienced "under the dome" is for a reason. That we are all being watched. Wars were included in our violent nature for some reason, and it be a shame to not mention that aspect of our human culture, since it has shaped up into what we are today. You are very correct in saying it was a "tangential" response. I was trying not to smack this beehive of a thread by pointing any fingers.

Yeah, we have those other things, but construction and agriculture (and travel, if by travel you mean vehicles and other tehnical/mechanical aspects of it)

Oh no, not necessarily I suppose, I was thinking more of just humans inherent curiosity to travel (There have always been human wonders, you can find them in the streets of the world or walking across america. I've spoken to a few myself!). We've always had it, another thing I think about if we are living under the dome, travel that is. Also why I mentioned art, in reference to being watched (if we are who knows). Just aspects of our culture and nature that I find very interesting.

didn't come to us by "common sense."  These things are continuously refined as we acquire more specific knowledge about physical sciences and then implement them.  Knowledge of slash and burn agriculture or placing counterweight structures in buildings to withstand high winds, for example, doesn't just come to us out of nowhere.  It comes to us as we continue to learn more and build upon prior knowledge. 

Indeed! All things I was to lazy to think of at the time haha we are an awesome race! Sure, we've been farming for more than a few hundred years, but we have really gotten good at it to support our massive population! We've come so far.

Don't forget how we also make near earthquake proof buildings now. That is quite ingenious of us as well, along with some very impressive mega structures. Quite the feats of engineering. I hope one day that the human race will stop all that rocket nonsense and finally build a space elevator to cut cost and conserve the environment. That would surely also lead to disproving flat earth and if we are actually spinning or not haha

In other words, it's "common sense" that common sense won't necessarily tell us about a whole bunch of things, like why things fall, how far away the sun is, what the shape of the earth is, etc.

You make an excellent point, starting this whole venture into the Flat Earth really made me accept how hard it is for me to prove myself otherwise weather the Heliocentric model or Flat model is the correct one. I wish there were many and varied proofs you, I and everyone in the fourm could preform to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt how the world we live in works and can indefinitely prove one model of our planet wrong or right. If it were as easy as that I am 100 percent sure we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, nor would these threads exist.

Hopefully one day I'm wrong and a repeatable experiment anyone can do at home or in their yard, or whatever, is brought forth that anyone can preform if they had the proper tools and motivation and hopefully not a great deal of money.

Enjoy your search 

68

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: August 07, 2016, 10:26:36 AM »

Here's another one, it's only 3 minutes long and it's called, "George Carlin -Who Really Controls America."

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

And what has any of that got to do with whether the earth is a Globe or flat?

I am afraid that who controls America (I assume you just mean the USA! Not the whole of North and South America!) has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of the earth!

I posted something like what I put at the end of this earlier, but got no sensible comment, all you can respond with is idiocy like:

Or, maybe we could buy up all the big media in america and force everybody who works in it to say things like, "the earth is flat, it should say so in every textbook and t.v. show!"  I bet in 20 years we could have overwhelming acceptance and of course, control all the elections 

At least it shows the mentality we are dealing with!

What about you coming up with a little positive evidence actually supporting your flat earth model and map!

Nothing I have seen comes close to what I see with own eyes.
I can see where the sun rises and sets - it simply does not fit with the Flat Earth sun motion!
I can see the stars rotating around a single point due south - it does not fit your model!
I can see the sun and moon keeping the same size from rising to setting! Quite impossible with the FE model.
I can see the sun and moon quite clearly rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon. Just like:

Sun setting at Barnhill

Sun almost set at Barn Hill

Also, I know the size and shape of Australia, I have driven over most of it. It is nothing like the accepted Flat Earth Map!

I find unbelievable in a group that is hoping for world wide acceptance to not even having an accurate map.

How are your flat earth navigators going to find their way and know how far it would be?

Stop fooling around and get a map and "model" that works if you ever hope for acceptance!

So, over to you! But you will have to come with a lot better than anything you have shown so far!

You cannot blame NASA, the Heliocentric Globe has been around for centuries before NASA!

I don't know what you're complaining about, you wanted a motive, so I gave you one.  But you just complain about it.  In fact, you seem to complain a lot;  it's annoying!   I don't like to ignore people. 

69

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: August 07, 2016, 10:20:28 AM »

You know, outer space is like that place where all the natural rules that we live by no longer apply. 

Believe the earth is flat by all means, but don't use this as an excuse to rubbish what you don't understand!
"All the natural rules that we live" still apply in outer space.
Newton's 3 laws.
Gravitational attraction = ^(Gm₁m₂)/_d²
The "G" in this expression is very small (6.67408×10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2).
You can pretty all this up with General Relativity, but it's simply not necessary for this level of discussion of the solar system.

These Laws explain almost all that you are questioning.
Yes, the Sun's size and mass are gargantuan (1.989 × 10³⁰ kg), but it is a long, long away (149,000,000 km), so the "d" in the gravitation expression is huge.

So, don't be tempted to look at one bit and say that looks ridiculous!  Even when it comes to the tiny gravitational effect of the moon on the earth (you don't weigh a measurable amount more with the moon overhead), the oceans have a huge mass and not much force is needed to move the water around the earth a bit, giving us tides - the wind does it a bit!

I won't go into any more detail, but it does all tie together, but you can't pick and choose the laws.

You keep missing the point.  Beliefs that destroy common sense, sabotage the capacity for moral reasoning.  Beliefs that support common sense, enable the capacity for moral reasoning.  If your purpose is to sabotage common sense, in order to take advantage of the people, then promoting beliefs like gravity, are in your interest.  There's the motive. 



Perry Mason Theme Song
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

On the contrary, there's no aspect of common sense that indicates humans have the ability to understand the world around us in depth with shallow, surface-level analysis and explanation.

What do you think is shallow? 

70

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: August 07, 2016, 10:16:11 AM »

I don't know why people keep saying (1) there are not definite proofs of a Spherical Earth and (2) there are proofs of a Flat Earth. I keep showing people, without a shadow of a doubt that there are. People refuse to see them though.

Simply put, amateur astronomy (photo/visual - not the theoretical stuff) supports/proves or falsifies/disproves/destroys/annihilates Earth models. It can not be faked because anyone that wants to, can verify it.

Here is why a FE model with people living on just ONE side CAN NOT work.
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)

Here is the problem with having the N.Pole in the middle of any single sided FE model:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0)

Here is why sunrises/sunsets are wrong on a FE:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66454.msg1776164#msg1776164)

There are definite "proofs" out there that support a spherical Earth and CAN NOT be accounted for on a FE. So I really don't know how people are confused about insufficient proof of a spherical Earth and that a Flat Earth has any proof at all, so they have a hard time deciding.

I agree with you in the opposite 

71

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: August 07, 2016, 10:14:48 AM »

Wikipedia says commercial jet aircraft generally cruise at around 500 m.p.h.  I flew from the northeastern united states to china, which is about half way around the world.

Nasa also says the Sun, relative to the earth, is not moving.  In other words, they claim when the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, it is because the earth is spinning west to east.  So, my flight from northeastern united states should have encountered, after take off, a earth that was spinning away from the plane at around 1,000 m.p.h.  The plane cruises at around 500 mph.  So, the planes combined speed should have been about 1500 m.p.h., on its way to China and should have taken a little over 8 hours.  However, on it's way back to the states, it would have encountered an Earth spinning away from it at around 1,000 m.p.h.  So, it's combined speed should have been around a negative 500 m.p.h., since the earth is supposed to spin about twice as fast as the plane flies.  Thus, flying backwards from China to the states and taking about 24 hours to arrive in America. 

Well, your first mistake was to think your plane was travelling 500mph relative to the Sun. That's 500mph relative to Earth's surface. From there, basic relative motion will clear up any misconceptions.

Why do you think that's a mistake, on the globe earth spinning around the sun model? 

72

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: August 07, 2016, 10:05:37 AM »

Thank god down is toward the center and not some arbitrary direction outside the globe like you seem to think it is.  Are you trying to prove you're ignorant?

You said, "...down is toward the center and not some arbitrary direction outside the globe..."  That's a unique objection.  I'll give you credit for that.  For me down is towards the earth or deeper into The Earth and it is the same for everybody, but for you down is towards the center of The Earth, so for you, one man's down is another man's up or even sideways!  That's Weird...

73

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: June 06, 2016, 10:00:31 AM »

...The surface of the Globe is spherical NOT a straight line from equator to poles.

The approximation horizon drop = 8" x miles² only holds over a limited distance (though not bad for up to hundreds of miles), after that the curve starts to steepen till at the point 90° away from the start the slope is (guess what) 90°...

Here's what a ninety degree slope looks like! 



Thank God The Earth isn't round! 

74

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: June 06, 2016, 09:41:04 AM »

In regards to NASA's figures, NASA will tell you the earth is around 25,000 MILES in circumference and around 8,000 MILES in diameter. 

So, in that regard, I am using, "NASA'S OWN FIGURES."

I still cannot understand why you blame NASA for those figures! The circumference of the Globe has been known for many centuries.

An Islamic Astronomer/Mathematician/Geodetic Surveyor named Al-Biruni measured the circumference quite accurately way back around 1,000 AD.

Yeah I get it, round earth wasn't invented by NASA, yet we do rely on them for our current information   

75

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: June 06, 2016, 09:30:07 AM »

So, I suppose scientists are lying when they say light can refract the other way?

Like in a rainbow?    



Rainbow in Kansas;  flat as a pancake! 

76

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: June 06, 2016, 09:20:34 AM »

If The World was round, then Earth walking would be an extreme sport! 



Fortunately, going to the grocery store is not this difficult 

77

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: June 06, 2016, 09:14:25 AM »

Giant Beach Ball! 

78

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: June 06, 2016, 09:10:23 AM »

  If you truly believe in a globe earth, then you have to account for approximately 4000 miles of drop, over approximately 6000 miles.  That equates to a drop of 8 inches per foot, not 8 inches per mile!  Unless I'm looking over the side of a cliff, I don't see that much drop and there aren't that many cliffs around, so it seems as if that drop doesn't exist.  However, if you can show me that it does, I'm all ears 

Do you understand that we're talking about a sphere, (or at least a circle if a sphere is too much to grasp)?  Do you know what a circle is?  I don't believe you do.

Have you ever tried to stand on a circle?   



pay special attention at minute 1:07

79

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: May 01, 2016, 12:21:13 PM »

Here's another one, it's only 3 minutes long and it's called, "George Carlin -Who Really Controls America."

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

80

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: May 01, 2016, 12:11:54 PM »

A nice little short video, for those of you who need to know it's just over 60 seconds long

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

81

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: May 01, 2016, 12:09:22 PM »

Do you see what I meant yet? You seem quite incapable of discussing the simple facts of the matter, you have to drag in what you think I'm thinking - what about sticking to the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts?

Yes, and I have reached my conclusion! 

What a wonderfully reasoned response!

Now it's your turn!

What about you coming up with a little positive evidence actually supporting your flat earth model and map!

Nothing I have seen comes close to what I see with own eyes.
I can see where the sun rises and sets - it simply does not fit!
I can see the stars rotating around a single point due south - it does not fit your model!
I can see the sun and moon keeping the same size from rising to setting!

Also, I know the size and shape of Australia, I have driven over most of it. It is nothing like any accepted flat earth map I have seen - oops, my mistake, there is no accepted Flat Earth Map!

That in itself I find unbelievable in a group that is hoping for world wide acceptance to not even having an accurate map.  How are your flat earth navigators going to find their way and know how far it would be.

Stop fooling around and get a map and "model" that works if you ever hope for acceptance!

Or, maybe we could buy up all the big media in america and force everybody who works in it to say things like, "the earth is flat, it should say so in every textbook and t.v. show!"  I bet in 20 years we could have overwhelming acceptance and of course, control all the elections 

 

82

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: May 01, 2016, 11:59:57 AM »

Although, I still think it sounds crazy.  But, if I believed in gravity and if I believed the earth was round, then that would be an explanation that would at least make me feel somewhat better about it.  Although, it could never really make sense.  It would just be "acceptable." 

83

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: May 01, 2016, 11:56:09 AM »

As we have stated it is because there is no "Down" in the way you are trying define it as.

That sounds crazy. 

Given a sphere with it's own gravity (things are pulled toward the surface), from the perspective of anyone on that surface, any direction away from the surface is 'up'.  The opposite direction toward the center of the sphere is 'down'.  It's quite simple really.

If only I was as smart as you, huh?  lol

Yeah, if only...   Get a desktop globe and stare at it long enough.  You'll figure it out.

Thanks! lmao

Seriously though, you did a good job of explaining it.  Thank you 

84

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I want tout learn

« on: May 01, 2016, 11:44:54 AM »

I think things fall, because they are heavy. 

85

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I want tout learn

« on: May 01, 2016, 11:43:40 AM »

The Earth is supposed to have a diameter of nearly eight thousand miles and a circumference of nearly twenty five thousand miles.  Therefore, the drop or incline from pole to equator should be around eight inches per foot.

Why? Is there gravity under the earth? Is there some force under the globe that would pull us down into the bottom of space (now there's an interesting concept, what's at the bottom of space)? No. The earth's gravity pulls towards it center. Therfore no matter where you are on earth you'll always be pulled down. I really don't get this argument at all.

That has to be the most intelligent response, from a round earther, I have gotten to this argument.  THANK YOU!!!! 

If I believed in gravity, then I might buy your argument.  I'm not kidding.  I don't know why Jane is afraid of it.  I think she's stuck in a rut (curve vs gradient).  Silly.  "She" should open her mind to new horizons 


Of course, I don't believe in gravity.  So...   

 

86

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I want tout learn

« on: May 01, 2016, 11:31:59 AM »

Why? Is there gravity under the earth? Is there some force under the globe that would pull us down into the bottom of space (now there's an interesting concept, what's at the bottom of space)? No. The earth's gravity pulls towards it center. Therfore no matter where you are on earth you'll always be pulled down. I really don't get this argument at all.

He's arguing we don't observe a curve like that: and he's right, because that's the drop on a straight line, not on a curve. I've asked him several times how he calculates that drop, and how said method differs from calculating the gradient of a straight line: no answer.

I've already told you how to calculate it.  25,000 miles in circumference and 8,000 miles in diameter, according to NASA's own figures.  So, fine.  From pole to equator is supposed to be about 6,000 miles and from pole to center of earth should be about 4,000 miles (if, of course, NASA isn't just "confused").  So, the drop should be 4000/6000 or 8 inches per foot and it ain't   

87

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: May 01, 2016, 11:19:38 AM »

In regards to NASA's figures, NASA will tell you the earth is around 25,000 MILES in circumference and around 8,000 MILES in diameter. 

So, in that regard, I am using, "NASA'S OWN FIGURES." 

88

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: May 01, 2016, 11:15:56 AM »

Regardless of the formula, at some point nearly four thousand miles of drop has to be accounted for, over the course of around six thousand miles.  That is a boat load of drop to account for.  I mean, that is huge!  We don't observe that, hence it seems impossible!  Anyone who's been on an ocean cruise should be able to see for miles across the water.  There is no drop! 

You can't "See for miles acros the water". You can only see so far.  And you can only see as far as the horizon. I would estimate the distance to horizon in your photo as about 5 or 6 miles. This is due to the curvature of the earth because the earth is a  globe. This isn't something new from NASA. It's something that sailors have known for centuries. Check out the formula listed on a previous post. It works.

Marciani seems to have 2 problems:
(1) He is confusing gradient and curvature of the earth.Two different subjects.
(2) He is confusing "8 inches per foot" and "8 inches per mile". Of course it's "8 inches per mile."

Thanks for your reply.  I can see the downtown of the city I live near on a clear day, no problem.  It's about 12 miles away.  There are suburbs, in my area, that are around 25 miles away from downtown and when I'm traveling through those suburbs I can often see downtown and not just the tops of the buildings, I can see most the the buildings.  I think you're limiting things.  Although, the number I see all over the internet is 3.1 miles (not 5 or 6) is as far as one can see over water, because of the curve of the earth.  However, it seems that they are incorrect. 

If you truly believe in a globe earth, then you have to account for approximately 4000 miles of drop, over approximately 6000 miles.  That equates to a drop of 8 inches per foot, not 8 inches per mile!  Unless I'm looking over the side of a cliff, I don't see that much drop and there aren't that many cliffs around, so it seems as if that drop doesn't exist.  However, if you can show me that it does, I'm all ears 

89

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Curve of The Earth According To NASA's Own Dimensions of The Earth

« on: April 02, 2016, 10:51:23 AM »

One mile is equivalent to approximately one and six tenths kilometers. 

90

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I want tout learn

« on: April 02, 2016, 10:47:43 AM »

That's curve!