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 - Ecthelion

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What now?
« on: April 18, 2016, 09:13:39 PM »
I've seen the video a few times before. It shows the ship going out of sight and coming back in view with magnification. You can also see the mirage of the ship because of refracted sunlight.

But why does it change color and shape? In the beginning it's a huge red ship. In the end it's just a white box, looking pretty much like the ship's superstructure.

None of us truly knows the shape of the earth because I'm sure none on here has been up high enough to see the real shape of the earth. We can only go by what we are told and believe.

That's not how knowledge works. Humanity would still be living in dirt huts and dying of influenza if everyone thought that way.

I said I wanted DEMONSTRABLE evidence.

Like what?
Any picture could be fake;
All the documents could be forged;
Every witness could be lying;
All the math could just be invented.

What exactly do you want us to do? If you are simply going to throw out every single observation as "wrong", you will end up where you started regardless. Why do you bother?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What now?
« on: April 18, 2016, 12:56:59 PM »
I know there is no sense arguing with you over this, that is why I conducted my own experiments. I've watched ships go completely out of sight on the horizon and I can use binoculars to bring the entire ship in full view again. I honestly believe it will work this way until the atmosphere will no longer allows it.

You "believe" it? What evidence is strong enough to make you believe, but not strong enough to make you know?

Well, in any case, can you tell me what happens in the following video, made by flat earthers?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

No need to listen to it, or even watch most of it. Just look at a few shots of the ship over the course of the video and tell me what you see.

If the earth curves 8"per mile square, then frozen or not frozen rivers, salt flats and deserts should not be flat. You know they are, you just won't allow yourself to believe it.

Why should they not be flat? They could be flat, concave or convex, depending on how they were formed. On small scales, the individual structure of the terrain is much more significant than the shape of the entire earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 96% Rubbish
« on: April 18, 2016, 12:26:30 PM »
This is what the Helio-centrist model requires one to believe in order to make the theory work. We must envisage that 96% of the universe is comprised of matter that has never been seen, never captured and never analyzed. Yet the Helio-centrist question aether for which we have ample evidence in the rotation of the bodies in the celestial sphere including Luna and the Sun.

You are most definitely correct. This shows so much of how a round earther thinks - he will invent an entire universe worth of matter before he dares to account for his own faulty mathematics. Look how they squirm. "4% is better than 0%." Rather than even attempt to account for their universe being held together by magic, they would rather point fingers and project their inadequacies on us!

No, its not. We have 100% of our matter accounted for. What's next? Suggesting that brownies are making a mess of my kitchen when I go to bed? Oh brother.

You have made that thread already. You have, like several times before, ultimately resorted to simply ignoring the thread instead of dealing with the counterpoints. Yet you continue to make the claim as if you had been able to support it. Can you still consider that honest debate?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk Why The Sky Is Blue?
« on: April 18, 2016, 07:09:13 AM »
The prism isn't a normal object. The colours the prism break are not the colour of the prism!

The objects like it just are exceptions. Exceptions do not break rules.

Well, certainly the sky isn't a "normal object", is it?
The sky is an exception, too. Problem solved.

Ahahah you are so funny guy. :D

Sky is not a "prism". To say it, you must prove the sky is a prism first.

Go back your school and learn what is a prism.  ;D

Noo, you is even more funny. You should be comedian :D

You say Rules not apply to Prism, because Prism special object
I say Rules not apply to Sky, because Sky special object

I say same thing you say, with same argument. So I am same right!
If prism can be special object, why not sky? Sky is very special, no?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk Why The Sky Is Blue?
« on: April 18, 2016, 06:54:41 AM »
The prism isn't a normal object. The colours the prism break are not the colour of the prism!

The objects like it just are exceptions. Exceptions do not break rules.

Well, certainly the sky isn't a "normal object", is it?
The sky is an exception, too. Problem solved.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk Why The Sky Is Blue?
« on: April 18, 2016, 05:09:53 AM »
Reflected colour is the true colour. You do not need to make it complicated.

You see something usually with a colour, it is it's own colour. You are trying to Another explanation is the answer to the question is what is a color. But you don't explain it. You just emphasize the differences during formation . Cmon, who cares how a colour formed. Colour is just colour. Why popular (fake) science is resisting the real science / truth?

Colour is just colour. Everybody must accept this truth.

But not all colours are reflections. You can also emit a colour (= a specific wavelength of light) directly. Like a prism:

What is the "true colour" of that prism? It's the same for the sky.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk Why The Sky Is Blue?
« on: April 18, 2016, 01:44:07 AM »
You see the soil as brown on the sunlight, it is brown.
You see the tree as green on the sunlight, it is green.
You see the building as  grey on the sunlight, it is grey.
You see the lime' as yellow on the sunlight, it is yellow.
You see the apple as red on the sunlight, it is red.
You see the sky as blue on the sunlight, but it is not blue. Lets get out of here idiot! These idiots are not scientists, just satanist idiots

According to the quotes you posted, none of the things is the respective color. They are all anything but the color the appear, since that is the only color they reflect.

The same principle appears to the sky. It appears blue, but isn't. It just emits blue light (like an apple emits red light).

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk Why The Sky Is Blue?
« on: April 18, 2016, 12:26:17 AM »
The definition of the colour is compatible with the blue color of the sky and sea definition .

Uh, if it's compatible, where is the problem?

They are hiding the truth because if they accept the sky is blue, so it can't be a space!

Well, obviously the sky is atmosphere.

The real colour proves the sky has an object has blue colour completely surrounded the earth!

Interesting question: If the sky is a solid dome, and the sun is a spotlight shining down, what is illuminating the dome? And shouldn't the dome heat up a lot from all that light (=energy)?

The Lounge / Re: Is Intikam Papa Legba?
« on: April 17, 2016, 10:44:49 PM »
Unlikely, the two kinds of crazy are pretty different. And Papa Legba would have had to invent that whole falsely accented english thing. It's hard to tell whether Papa Legba was genuinely damaged or just a very dedicated troll, but I think inventing a whole new persona with a whole new kind of crazy is beyond even the most dedicated of trolls.

Yes. I am aware it was he. I haven't looked @ his other posts. How far gone is he? Or should I ask?

Well, you certainly shouldn't read any of them, if you value your sanity.
Just as a warning, here is one of his thread titles:
Is Qantas(SATANQ) a fake airline just fooling the world?(undeniable proofs)

And yes, he appears to be serious about that.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: self awarness
« on: April 17, 2016, 08:55:11 AM »
how do we really know that humans, us are self aware? please give me an answer.

Who is writing this? Are you aware that it is you, thinking your thoughts and writing your posts? Then you are self aware. It's not difficult to tell for oneself. It's impossible to tell for everyone else.

As i remember one day i was walking at a shopping center, as i was walking i see a guy wearing the exact same shirt and same pants and looked exactly like me, it took me a second or so to figure it out that i was looking at a mirror opposite to me, and that's when i remembered an article i read on Facebook that talks about self awareness and  the person who wrote the article mentioned that cats and dogs sometimes do not recognize themselves in the mirror and that's proof that they are not self aware. but then i also remembered that babies until the age of 18 months do not actually see their reflection at the mirror as themselves, but someone else, some babies even laugh and act as if it was a real person. does that mean that a young human is not actually self aware?

That is the assumption, yes. The thing is we only guess based on how much others behave like ourselves, we don't really have direct access to their self awareness.

consciousness, i believe that consciousness is something that does develop over time, i am also aware that science has not yet detected a physical place of where the human consciousness is located in someone's body.

Insofar as that is possible, science has located it: The brain. The thing is science cannot ever look at consciousness directly. We can look at brainscans and infer from those that whatever we are looking at is similar to us, and we are conscious, so the other person is too. But really that's a guess. In reality, all you truely know is yourself.

What makes you, you.

Just the most barest awareness of self, abstracted from anything else. You are simply that which accompanies all you thoughts. Without you, your thoughts are not, but without your thoughts, you are nothing.

What makes me who i am is it my arms, legs or heart? because as far as i know scientists and doctors can in fact replace my kidney with someone's else they can also replace my heart and pretty much all my organs, but for some reason i remain to be me.

All your body is already outside "you". You feel it, but your are not it.

there is an operation where doctors remove one half of the brain, and the person still remains the same person.

Highly unlikely. Do you have a source?

how  does that work? how is it that we can remove anything in the human body but yet remain the same people with the same characteristics?

Brain damage is a thing. You can change a person by changing their brain. Without a brain you are not, though you aren't your brain in the sense that "you" isn't any physical substance.

O, right! I forgot! Heaven forbid we should offend those who kill our people & break our things, & then say WE are doing it! No, in comes our anti-Jewish Mod on his white horse to save Muslims from their own lies & filth! Isn't it just grand?  Well, I tell you what: I shall tone down the 4 letter Anglo-Saxon words. But I shall NEVER stop showing the world the truth about Islam. I was willing to leave things alone until the OP started bashing Jews. Now, he is dogmeat. & I shall enjoy making him such. In fact, I shall make him lie down w/ pigs & filth. I think he should be forced to eat bacon w/ every meal. There are plenty of hog farmers in my State that would LOVE for him to be in their pigstye.

The one who was "bashing jews" was Intikam. Just look at his other posts and decide if it's really worthwile to get worked up over.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: The Fall of Gravity
« on: April 17, 2016, 08:42:19 AM »
Galileo said objects fall to earth at the same speed, irrespective of mass, so long as their shape/aerodynamics were the same, explaining why his steel balls of varying sizes/weights he supposedly released on top of the leaning tower of Pisa at the same time, fell to the ground at the same time, or, to put it another way, objects on earth are equally attracted to earth, irrespective of mass.

Newton said the closer/more massive two objects are, the more attracted to one another they'll be, explaining why the moon goes around the earth, and the earth supposedly goes around the sun, and the sun supposedly goes around the center of the milky way and so on.

Galileo's observations contradict Newton's.

If Galileo is correct, and if gravity is monolithic, then every object should be equally attracted to every other object, the earth should be as attracted to the sun, as a speck of space dust is attracted to the sun, and the sun should be as attracted to the earth, as a speck of space dust.

If Newton is correct, then more massive objects should fall to earth faster.

You can't have it both ways, either gravity doesn't exist, or, it has a double standard, perhaps many standards.

Newton is (more) correct.

Also, the proximity of objects within the earths atmosphere to earth doesn't seem to matter, can they demonstrate a rock nearer to the earth, will fall faster to earth than an object further from the earth?

They can.

Yeah and why do further objects orbit one another, and nearer objects fall for each other, who knows, or cares right?

Conservation of momentum. If you go sideways fast enough, and nothing is slowing you down, you will keep missing the ground.

Just about everything orbiting the earth spins around it in the same direction the earth is spinning, assuming the earth is spinning.

Pretty much the only natural object orbiting the earth is the moon. As to why Satelites orbit in the direction of the earth: Go play Kerbal Space Program. It will tell you that it's easier to go fast if you use your existing rotation instead of working against it.

Are objects pulled down to earth, with heavier ones pushing lighter ones out of the way, towards the top, or are objects pushed up to space, with lighter ones pushing heavier ones out of the way, towards the bottom?
Do you use the word pull, or push, do they know why one should be used over another, do they care?

Technically the earth is pushing everyone up, gravity is a pseudo-force caused by the curvature of space. I have learned that on this very forum, proving that you can find wisdom (well, knowledge) in the most unlikely of places.

What does magnetism have to do with anything?

As much as any other force.

Why would that only effect things here on earth, why wouldn't it effect things on a cosmic, or galactic, interplanetary scale?

Inverse square law.

What if all this shit was just a series of assumptions the scientific community made, that kind of seemed neat and sort of explanatory at the time, but still terribly flawed, and they just ran away with it, because they wanted to be special, they wanted to come up with something brand new, something they'd be remembered for, so if the church zigged, and church science with it, secular science zagged, and so they formulated their antithetical world view - human beings aren't special, the cosmos is largely void, and hostile to life, yadda, yadda, and they're much to deep into it to back down now on the fundamentals, even a bit, because they'd lose so much face, and, furthermore how secular was and is science???
Is Freemasonry to modern science, what the catholic church was to medieval science?
So many of these philosophers, heck, politicians and such were Freemasons, Rosicrucians and occultists, I heard Newton himself was steeped, immersed in the Occult.

What if? Well I suppose all of our modern technology, which is interconnected with much of it depending on that science, would fall apart and cease to work. Since that doesn't happen, it seems to me it's not all made up.

post evidence that Islam is all about hatred and nothing like peace.

The title of your topic asks to prove a negative
Then your actual text opens up with an extreme strawman. Basically no-one claims that islam is "all about hatred".

I have no background in the field, but I would like to register the opinion that there is no singular "Islam". Just as there is no singular "Christianity". There is a bunch of different religions based on the same core ideas but with widely different interpretations. The Islam of ISIS (Daesh, if you prefer) is certainly a violent and hateful one, and does draw upon textual references of hatred and violence. Other forms of Islam do not draw upon these same textual references, or interpret them differently, and as a result are peaceful and tolerant. Just like some versions of Christianity use textual references from the bible to support intolerance and hatred, while others don't. Russian orthodox Christianity, American evangelist movements, the catholicism of Pope Francis, mainstream european protestants. Those are all very different, even if they rely on the same book. Why should Islam be any different?

When the Bible (or it's constituent texts) was new, it was certainly intended to a significnat extent as a factual ("scientific" in the context of this thread) account. The idea that the things the bible describes are not historical accounts but metaphors is relatively new, and mostly used to reconcile biblical text with scientific findings.

The bible contains a great deal of wisdom (the teachings of Jesus, for example), but it also contains a great deal of wrong factual accounts. Old books often turn out to be wrong on many things, even though old wisdom often holds.

Ok. Then lets deal with something you have more of a grasp on. If I may say so but if you didnt had much of a grasp on the evidences you listed then why bring it up in the first place?

Yeah, it's kind of a dissonance, I agree. I probably shouldn't have brought it up, but I only realized that once I read your counter article. I guess what I was trying to do was to introduce a new basis into the discussion and not have it revolve solely around fossils and carbon dating. But apparently that was quite unnecessary. And now there seem to be a number of posters who are comfortable disucssing genetics, so I'll leave the rest of that conversation to them.

So are you saying that science can't deal with beginnings? If so then we are one accord.

Yes and No. Science can deal with beginnings (plural) just fine. Once you know how a certain relation works, you can travel the causal chain down as well as up, and you can figure out how things came about in the past. You can explain the origin of the sun and planets, or a particular species, etc. What science cannot deal with is the beginning, the ultimate first cause, because that is outside human ability to observe.

Anyway creationism, while it deals with beginnings, it doesn't hinder scientific advancement. In fact it helps it. Matter of fact all of the major sciences and most of the advancements in those sciences (except macro evolution becuase I consider it not apart of science) were started by those who believed in a creator. In a creationist view it'll go something like this. "Hey, if a creator made the universe for man's benefit and I discovered such and such how can I use it to advance society? Lets find out."

Matter of fact mostly everyone who has lived has believed in a creator. Whether or not they made discoveries because or or in spite of that belief is an open question. But anyways it's not irrational to believe in a creator. The problem occurs when you put the creator in the physical universe and assert certin truths about the physical world based on religion.

I don't quite see how what you outlined differs from a normal scientific process. Scientists already discover thinks and try to find ways to apply them, how does creationism help? There is no evidence that belief in God automatically makes one a moral person, after all.

The mainstream theory of origins is in the same boat as well. It doesn't know where the matter from the Big Bang came from. In fact many believe the matter came from nothing, literally.

Yes, the mainstream theory on the origin of the Universe is. But the mainstream theory on the origin of species isn't. I don't see people arguing that you cannot posit that God made the Universe by causing the Big Bang. If you want to put that in schoolbooks as a theory, I wouldn't object. But there is a qualitative difference between the ultimate beginning of everything, which isn't itself part of the physical world, and a specific question about a physical process.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« on: April 15, 2016, 07:13:38 AM »
I don't fall into assumptions judging my logic and observation to be sufficient to describe what's happening on some far-away region of the cosmos.

But you're wrong. Observation and logic together can form a complete model of the entire universe, if only of the universe as it appears to a human observer. Perhaps more accurately an ever more correct model, as there will never be a final one.

You assume universe is complex but on the ther hand you express dissatisfaction with my opinion about its complexities. You're the one on a forum whose members consider a flat earth model. So you should be the one to present your arguments clearly. So far you've only showed disagreement for the sake of doing it. What do you want exactly?

I want to argue, because arguing is fun. I'd like to teach people a bit about the theory of knowledge in the process. People who like to wear their ignorance like a crown are in dire need of it.

I've watched the video several times and it's open to debate if the rocket has stopped or not. If you want to believe it had already slowed down and the top stopped spinning, fair enough. However, I believe you can argue the opposite view and suggest the rocket did hit something. Part of the rocket does break off. You see the fragment in the right box here. Top left corner of the right box.

If the rocket did hit something, shouldn't it bounce back? Shouldn't the camera bounce notably?

By the way, if that's the flat earth, it'd have to be tiny. You basically only see the one continent. That can't be right, can it?

No but you can always google the rebuttal if you want.

I suppose, but what would be the point of that? You have probably already heard everything I might find, and in any event reurgitating things I don't even properly understand isn't honest debate.

Actually it makes many predictions. Like we should see world wide evidence of sediments, evidence of design, families only reproducing after their own kind, and so much more.

Those sound like description though. The point of science, as far as I understand is, is to tell us how things work so we can shape the results of our actions according to our goals. A way to make informed decisions involving future events. But according to Creationism, again as far as I understand it, it just goes to "god did it" and stops there. There's no way Creationism could tell us how the design of species works, because we aren't god and couldn't understand, much less replicate it.

This goes to a more general point: God is, pretty much by definition, a metaphysical entity. It's not part of the physical universe, as the common attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience, the uncaused cause) are not perceivable by a human observer. This means that whenever we assume God is involved in something, we place our cause on the metaphysical level. But the metaphysical level is unknowable for humans, since all our information comes from observation, which is subjective and can therefore only tell us something about the world as it appears to a human observer, which is the physical, or empirical, world.

So not only do we assume a cause that we cannot possibly know, only believe in. We then also have to answer how the metaphysical interacts with the physical. Anything God does on the physical level would be perceivable as simple physical laws by us humans. Since we don't perceive the metaphysical intervention of God, we'd just see the sequence of physical events and according to the principle of cause and effect (a part of our consicousness) we'd form it into a physical law. So even if, on the metaphysical level, there is intelligent design by god, on the physical level, which science deals with, there would have to be physical processes that appear simply governed by physical laws. Scientists try to explain these physical processes, and currently the theory of evolution is the best guess they have. That guess may be wrong, but Creationism will never be an acceptable alternative because it isn't a guess about the physical world. It's an appeal to a metaphysical entity which it's fine to believe in but which can never be known. As such it is of no interest to our endeavour to understand the physical universe.

To me the interesting counter question is why we need to work with some kind of indirect evidence (like Fossils or carbon dating) when we already know how evolution works on the molecular level. DNA exists. Mutations exist. From my layman's perspective, there seems to be increasing evidence that parts of the DNA can be reinforced or "deactivated" based on how you live.

Based on that, there is no reason there wouldn't be macro evolution. There is no way you can draw a line between "micro" and "macro" evolution that isn't arbitrary. Long giraffe necks are certainly a macroscopic change, and it's pretty clear how that change works based on what we know about heredity. Complex organs like eyes are a lot harder to explain, naturally, but where does one draw the line, and more importantly, what's on the other end of the line? Even if we accept "God did it" as the ultimate cause, what are the steps expressed in physical form?

Here's some links addressing that.

Don't you consider it rude to post links without at least some summary? I find that pretty annoying.

Anyways, the first link deals with in-depth biology I am unqualified to discuss. It could say whatever it wants and I'd be in no position to question it. Do you have a background in a related field?

I do note that it frames Creationism as very beneficial, akin to modern medicine and anaesthetics. But does Creationism have predictive power? Doesn't it just create a black box around heredity that we cannot touch?

The second link I don't quite get. I only see a short summary of a claim. What am I supposed to look at?

To me the interesting counter question is why we need to work with some kind of indirect evidence (like Fossils or carbon dating) when we already know how evolution works on the molecular level. DNA exists. Mutations exist. From my layman's perspective, there seems to be increasing evidence that parts of the DNA can be reinforced or "deactivated" based on how you live.

Based on that, there is no reason there wouldn't be macro evolution. There is no way you can draw a line between "micro" and "macro" evolution that isn't arbitrary. Long giraffe necks are certainly a macroscopic change, and it's pretty clear how that change works based on what we know about heredity. Complex organs like eyes are a lot harder to explain, naturally, but where does one draw the line, and more importantly, what's on the other end of the line? Even if we accept "God did it" as the ultimate cause, what are the steps expressed in physical form?

I have messed around with a curvature calculator. I am wondering if anyone can answer how you can look out over 100 miles and see a city when its suppose to be over 5,000 ft below the horizon?

In order to answer that, we'd kinda need to know what city and how one sees it 100 miles away (that's rather far away to see, it must be well lit or the buildings must be pretty big).

So far since I joined this site all I ever see is Round Earth defenders attacking Flat Earthers in very hostile and unprovoked manners when they share their belief. Reminds me of Atheists on Youtube. Shameful.

Care to point out examples? "Your are wrong" and "that's not how it works" are not hostile or attacks. Purely textual debates on the internet always tend to get more aggressive than a normal conversation, but that's not special to this site.

Certainly very little on this site stoops as low as Youtube comments, especially comments on religious topics. In fact, a number of posters display an incredible amount of calm and patience in trying to explain what we know about the world and how we know it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« on: April 13, 2016, 05:54:09 AM »
Sun is a star. When you look the sky at night, what do you see but stars? I don't claim to know what's illuminanting planets out there.

But you do claim no-one else knows, either. You are basically claiming that we cannot know anything about the universe, and that's simply false.

Why do you suppose you know the universe as the back of your hand?

Why should I assume that what I think I know is wrong? You have given me no reason to doubt that what I say is correct.

Look this news:

We actually know very little about the universe. Your observation, when applied to unknown things, is only a wild guess.

No, our theories are not just wild guesses. They are accurate representations of the universe as it currently appears to humans. Weird things still happen all the time, but that is because the universe is very, very complex. Feynman describes it as a game of chess played by chess masters. Just the fact that we have a decent grasp of the rules of chess doesn't mean we understand every move they make. And for the same reason the fact that we cannot explain a particular occurence doesn't mean we don't know the rules.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« on: April 12, 2016, 09:48:00 PM »
You meant: "That's not quite how the logic works to me."

Do you have an objection? Or do you just not believe in logic in general?

And all that source of light at night when you look at the sky is what? No source of light there?

What it is is reflected sunlight. Are you claiming the moon illuminates Jupiter? If not, why do you bring it up?
Debating "tactics" like this really are neither new nor clever.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Europe Is Completely Flat !
« on: April 12, 2016, 01:15:25 AM »
These errors can be caused by measurement error. There are errors in the same amount of global map. I showed it to have the same error 0,11% and 0,11% that in the mathemathical error limit that %0,5.

What measurement? You are not measuring anything. You took given distances and put them on a flat surface. If the distances originated on a flat surface, they should all fit perfectly. They don't.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Europe Is Completely Flat !
« on: April 11, 2016, 10:55:10 PM »
You have wrong.

If you turn around a shape like you drawn, then you true it shows the distances flat or sphere it doesn't matter. But when you want to find next point which you choose inside them, the point has a difference for sphere or flat. Because the area of the surfaces aren't same.

And this is exactly what we see from your excel tables: There is errors in them!
For example: The distance to Paris is 4km off from almost all points (only 2 km for Vienna - Paris)
Where does this error come from?

Since you tirangulate all points using given distances, there should be no errors if the earth was flat. Your autocad program was forced to shift cities around in order to fit them on a flat surface. If it didn't, flat earth distance should be = flight distance every time! Instead there is an error that is roughly the same as the error round earth distance -> flight distance.

I published this picture for anticipating this objection .

First 4 points on the out, you are true. But 5th point which inside them, you are wrong.

therefore, it can not become globe maps to the flat maps. usually synchronized field by cutting some areas of the map to show it.

Why is this picture impossible on a globe earth? Assuming the earth is a globe (for the argument), what we see is a projection based roughly on Vienna.. The distance between the center and the edges is never larger than 2.000km. The earths circumference, assuming a globe earth, is ca. 40.000km! Using some online calculators, the difference between a flat and a curved line over this small a segment is only 8km. With a little shifting around of the cities, the numbers you get seem easily possible.

And the circles don't intersect "perfectly". This is plainly written in your excel table! Paris-Vienna is 2km off, so is Istanbul-Vienna.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is the moon a hologram??
« on: April 11, 2016, 07:21:38 AM »
Are ridiculous questions like this common around here?

No, usually the questions are quite sensible and the answers are ridiculous.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Europe Is Completely Flat !
« on: April 11, 2016, 06:45:28 AM »
You are answering nonsense started with when you posted your first message. You are talking just nonsence without offering any 
logical data.

If you don't understand something, you should simply ask.
I will try again:
You took the flight distances of some flights;
You mapped these out on a flat surface;
You find that the resulting distances fit a flat surface.

Your starting point is a flat surface. You end up with a flat surface because you started with one.

you're talking about something theoretical . You have to support them in drawing or formula. just like I did. or you're being ridiculous .

Your request is ridiculous. My point has nothing to do with math or geometry. It is pure logic.

I nevertheless tried and painted you a picture:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8