1081

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Movement of Oceans prove that the Earth is FLAT.

« on: May 06, 2016, 05:23:11 AM »

What exactly do you mean by "more water"? The water level should be higher?
When the earth formed, it formed as a spheroid slightly thicker at the eqator. This does effect both the surface and the water.

Yes, the water level should be higher and the oceans deeper. Generally, there should be more water at the equators than at the poles, and yet this is not the case.

How do you know that the water level is not higher at the equator?

1082

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Movement of Oceans prove that the Earth is FLAT.

« on: May 06, 2016, 04:52:20 AM »

What exactly do you mean by "more water"? The water level should be higher?
When the earth formed, it formed as a spheroid slightly thicker at the eqator. This does effect both the surface and the water.

1083

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Direction of sunlight PROVES Flat Earth

« on: May 06, 2016, 04:38:24 AM »

I am saying they are not vertical. In this picture, i guess the sun stands at an angle of about 45° above the horizon (rough estimate), so the rays are going downwards, but also towards you, creating the seen effect. This also explains why the rays further away from you (as seen in the picture), are far less diverging, which is not explainable in your theory of the sun being almost directly above the clouds.

1084

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Direction of sunlight PROVES Flat Earth

« on: May 06, 2016, 04:25:35 AM »

Why would someone build a road that gets smaller and smaller the further it is away from you? Oh, right. Perspective.
crepuscular rays prove nothing, neither flat nor round earth.

1085

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If you can answer this I will believe you.

« on: May 05, 2016, 05:15:23 AM »

My questions
 - How does a plane ever reach its destination when flying at 550 knots (approx 500 miles per hour) towards the 1030/1040 mph spin of the Earth? and why the very similar time frame in travel when on a return flight against the spin?
(Someone tried to answer this for me explaining the atmosphere took the plane along with it which could make some kind of sense if not the additional `against` the spin, because this would have the plane unable to return without considerable difficulty - Either way it would take a lot, lot longer or a lot, lot quicker in return)
When the plane takes off, it is already spinning with the earth. Why would it suddenly lose that speed? The 550 knots flying speed are relative to the atmosphere, which is moving with the earth.
 
-Why when the moon is a half moon does it show a straight line? what is the shadow giving a straight line?
The moon is only illuminated partly by the sun. Take a flashlight and a ball, go to a dark room and point the flashlight at the ball. Now go around said ball. You will see all the "moon phases", especially when you stand perpendicular to the rays of light, you will see a straight line.

- Why is Antarctica out of bounds to the entirety of this worlds inhabitants? And why is the hole in the ozone allegedly over Antarctica not over any country that is said to be causing the most CFC damage?
Antarctica is really cold, quite far away from inhabited countries and there is almost no food. I would not want to live there. There are some research stations there, though. It is only out of bonds for military or economic purposes.

- Why do NASAs official Earth images on their own website differ considerably every year?
Believe it or not, most pictures of the earth are photoshopped. The best pictures are taken by sattelites in low-earth orbit, so one picture could not show the entire earth. So they take many pictures and stitch them together. If you showed me two pictures and pointed out where they seem to differ, i could go into more detail.

- Why does the NASA image of Earth in actual orbit have no movement of clouds?
If you mean the 24-hour timelapse taken by a geostationary sattelite: The clouds you see there are way, way bigger than the little clouds you see when you look up. Most of those clouds are as big as half the US. Also they do move, although quite slow.

Respectfully I cannot see the logic in the ant on the crystal ball. I do understand the ant following its feet on the ball though However -  The ant emerges into view but, only from extremely close up would it provide the perspective of a flat horizon in which it is emerging from. This in effect contradicts perspective regarding ships etc - A ball will always look like a ball regardless of the scale and only ever the closer you are providing the flat perspective - even light bending cannot excuse the flat horizon because once the sun has set the horizon does not return to a curve.
Light bending has nothing to do with the flat horizon. The horizon seems flat because the earth is huge. I don't know why you think that this effect contradics perspective regarding ships.
A very huge ball does not look like a ball to a small person standing on top of it.
 
Emerging from beneath the sea can also be explained by size and eye level perspective- The simplest way to experiment is to take yourself to a flat road that goes for miles and miles and can be seen because some kind of structure is visible from the ground it stands on upwards, ....  Now have someone drive lets say thirty miles towards that structure - They will (due to size and perspective) quite literally disappear into the distance - Now have them drive back - as they get closer the first thing you will see is the roof of the car because that it is eye level and the closer they get the larger they appear and more of the car becomes notable and identifiable as to what it is.
It neither proves the world flat or spherical but, does prove eye level and size perspective
This does not explain ships emerging from beneath the see. When a ship moves away from you, you don't see it fading into the distance, but you see it vanishing behind the horizon bottom first. That can only be explained by something obstructing the view, and that is the (curved) sea.

I truly do believe a circular plane (amid a square or rectangular structure of walls) can provide the same perspective of which the spherical planet provides - I cannot believe what I am told without seeing it for myself -  do not know the truth of what this earth actually is but, nothing I am told nor shown to date determines proof - NASA is not truth, Science nor religion are truth and, too many lies and misinformation lead me to not suddenly decide I must believe nothing but, at least question what does not make sense - The globe model falls under many dubious categories for me - There were (alongside the references you give) the likes of Copernicus who stated the world was a globe and suddenly the globe is fact a fair few hundred years prior to NASA - The only evidence we have are their very iffy imagery as I describe above - I see science as a religion to oppose religion - The arrogance of demanding a belief falls foul of each aka Cognitive Dissonance and ego  - Neither provide an allowance to use the intelligence of ones own research and conclusions made without approval 
Science is exactly using intelligence of your own to do research and come to conclusions. It does not contradict religion (nor does it claim to), only if you take the bible literally. But (in my opinion) that is the wrong approach to religion. There is much more evidence to the globe earth than the images of space companies, like the sun setting behind the horizon, the existence of sattelites and so on.


I do not understand you saying being on a mountain top and seeing further can only be proved by a global model because of the curve and could not be understood using the flat earth understanding.
This can be shown best by a little sketch like this one: http://i.stack.imgur.com/MLlHh.jpg

1086

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can coriolis and relative motion coexist? Michelson-Morely experiment, no co

« on: May 05, 2016, 04:49:13 AM »

First off, I don't know anything about Linear Aircraft models by NASA, someone else might have to jump in there.
About coriolis effect vs. relativity: Einstein stated (and it seems that he was right), that the speed of light is independent of the reference frame of the observer, meaning if you flew by me at half the speed of light and turned on a flashlight, the rays of light would propagate with the same speed in both of our reference frames. This means that an aether as a medium for the propagation of light can not exist. But this has less to do with earths relatively slow rotation, but more with the earth moving way faster around the sun.
The coriolis-effect is simply the conservation of angular momentum. If you move from the (relatively fast spinning) equator in the direction of the (not so fast spinning) poles or vice versa, your angular momentum changes. This results in a force, named coriolis-force. If light were to travel along the surface of the earth, it would experience the same force, but since the surface of the earth is curved and light travels in straight lines, it does not.

1087

The Lounge / Re: New here

« on: May 04, 2016, 07:38:43 AM »

Thank you for the warm welcome (and the warnings).

1088

Flat Earth Debate / Re: earthquake..

« on: May 04, 2016, 12:51:31 AM »

^  Infinite monkey theorem

To op: If you flew from the equator (moving at about 1.600km/h) to the poles (stationary), you would lose those 1.600km/h.. during a flight of, say, 10 hours. That is a deceleration of roughly 0.01m/s^2 or 0.001g. That is very slow. By the way, this effect is called coriolis effect (hope I spelled that correctly) and it is one of the main clues why the earth is spinning, because we can in fact observe this force.

1089

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seeing stars from others areas of flat earth

« on: May 04, 2016, 12:42:32 AM »

I made a post on FB that made a reference to Polaris being the the center of the north pole never moving. and if this were the case, when the three wise men were following the star (Polaris) and it is in the middle of the north pole wouldn't bethlahem be at the north pole? How do I explain seeing the star polaris from different parts of the flat earth? Wouldn't it be seen anywhere on a flat earth? There is a bible verse that states something like Satan brought Jesus to a very high mountain and showed him "ALL" the kingdoms of earth from that mountain? This is not possible on a spherical earth. Just a couple questions I have. I am a flat earther. I have seen enough evidence to prove it.

I don't exactly understand your point about polaris. You can only see it from the northern hemisphere, but the northern hemisphere is big.
If you can show me this mountain, you will have me convinced. Sadly, even flat earthers say that you can never see the whole world from a single point (I mean, even the sun seems to fade out and it is super-luminous and 3.000 miles high, how high should that mountain of yours be?). If that mountain does not exist, then I guess that phrase in the bible was just a metaphor.

1090

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2016, 02:21:20 PM »

Come to think of it, that does sound confusing...

1091

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth

« on: May 03, 2016, 11:38:21 AM »

Sad for you because even Einstein was quoted as saying it makes no sense to not bring religion and science together, (paraphrasing of course) but look it up. That is the problem with science today...they leave out the most important part of any science equation...God the Creator. Keep seeking though and you will find. The Theory of reletivity is just that...a theory in order to make a spinning globe mathematically possible...otherwise scientists cannot prove the earth moves. Do some research and you will find I am right.

No. He was not. He had his personal opinions about quantum mechanics, supported by his personal belief in God (he did not want to believe that some things happen purely random). He proposed that there was a secret mechanism behind that (see EPR-paradox) and supported a scientific experiment which could prove or disprove his hypothesis. Turns out he was wrong. So next time you call on Einstein combining god and science, keep in mind that
a) he simply formulated a personal belief, he did not call it a theory or proof of anything
b) he tried to scientifically prove his point by a repeatable experiment
c) he was wrong

1092

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2016, 07:00:38 AM »

Depends who you ask. Some say that the light of the sun bends upwards and is therefore impossible to be seen from a certain distance (which would actually explain sunsets). Others post something about perspective, but fail to explain how it can make the sun appear to sink. Others point out that the atmosphere is not 100% transparent, so you are only able to see things at a certain distance, but this also does not explain why the sun seems to set.

1093

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Velocity of the flat Earth

« on: May 03, 2016, 03:01:46 AM »

To op: At such speeds you have to account for relativistic effects. We would be moving at roughly 0.999999987c. Your point still stands though, although one could argue that you feel this velocity, because you are being pushed down.

Hmm, Bible+Universal acceleration=Good maths.
Which then in turn debunks flat earth.
Looking forward to your next post.

I did never claim to debunk flat earth, just brought in relativity to op's maths.
Still, if you believe in UA and think that the fact that you do not feel the earth moving speaks against a globe earth, his point stands. If we suppose that the earth is older than 1000 years (leaving the bible out of this), we would still be moving at a much higher speed than in the round-earth model.

1094

The Lounge / New here

« on: May 03, 2016, 02:56:22 AM »

Hey,

I came to this site via a youtube-video and have been lurking in this forum for a while. At first, I was astonished by the fact that there are still people who believe that the earth is flat. Then I realized that you do have a valid point - I did never question the shape of the earth, I believed it was spherical as I was taught. That does not change the fact that it is, indeed, spherical, but the idea of questioning established models and looking for alternatives is quite interesting to me.
I finally registered, because I had some nagging questions about your model and noone posted them before (or at least I could not find them).
About myself - I am a 24 year old student writing my master's thesis in mathematics (minor physics). My main field of study is (algebraic) topology, but if you want to discuss dynamical systems or differential geometry, I'm all yours.
I do not hope to convince any flat-earther on this forum (if you do believe in a flat earth despite all evidence and obervations already explained in other posts, I will not be able to convince you), but I enjoyed reading the discussions and I hope to have even more fun participating in them.

1095

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Velocity of the flat Earth

« on: May 03, 2016, 12:50:16 AM »

To op: At such speeds you have to account for relativistic effects. We would be moving at roughly 0.999999987c. Your point still stands though, although one could argue that you feel this velocity, because you are being pushed down.