22621

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???

« on: December 19, 2016, 10:13:00 PM »

Parallax?  Okay, so you know how when you're driving down a highway, the side of the road looks like it's flying by really quickly, and trees nearby seem to move somewhat slower, and a mountain way off in the distance barely seems to move at all?  It's like that, except the star is billions of times farther away than the mountain.  You're not going to see any difference.

Because our movement is rotational rather than linear that doesn't hold. You can see quite a large difference. It is why after a long flight the time zone is all out of wack.

22622

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???

« on: December 19, 2016, 09:23:24 PM »

If airplane flies 500 miles per hour westbound and the earth turns (above the equator) 1000 miles/h eastbound, then according to the law of INERTIA such airplane wouldn't be able to fly towards WEST AT ALL, since any attempt TO FLY TOWARDS WEST 500 miles/h would actually end up as moving eastbound at the same rate : 500 miles/hour (since 1000 - 500 = 500), that is to say such airplane would proceed TOWARDS EAST against the will of those who tried to direct it westbound :

Yes, it moves 500 mph eastbound. Meanwhile, the Earth below it is moving 1000 mph eastbound. This means the Earth below it moves faster, and results in the plane appearing to move west relative to Earth.

So, you dug your own grave by using your famous tool/ all mighty excuse : INERTIA in order to explain how aviation could work above spinning earth at all....

That is to say : trying to explain how come that an airplane which flies 500 miles/h can reach any eastern destination since the earth rotates twice faster (above the equator), you have to use some excuse, and that excuse is INERTIA.

Well, you can't use that excuse any more, since taking into account INERTIA in the context of the spinning earth idiotic assumption (theory), you have to admit that no westbound flight would be possible due to the impact of the same force which you use for decades to explain how is possible to fly eastwards above the spinning earth.

Nope. The same reasoning is used in both. Inertia isn't the only issue, that is what means it starts at the same speed as Earth and doesn't need to speed up. The other issue is that their speed is then relative to the air, which is why in some places they go faster in one direction due to jet streams.

This doesn't change the fact that relative to Earth, they can fly east or west (or any other direction). Yes, they would still be moving East, but Earth is moving faster.

Will you admit you are wrong this time, or just come up with more crap?

22623

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shap of the dome.

« on: December 19, 2016, 07:14:12 PM »

If there were a dome, you'd think that, at some point, certain phenomena would become apparent:
- an airplane would crash into (or through) it,
- someone would have found its base or supports touching the Earth,
- a meteor or asteroid might have smashed into it,
- a light beam (such as a laser), or a solid object, would bounce off of it and be reflected in a way that makes the dome obvious to people on the ground.

But none of this has happened.  If someone could actually find where this dome touches the ground there'd be entirely new industries and sciences developing to drill through the dome and explore whatever is beyond it.

Flat Earthers make up all sorts of excuses.
-It is too high for an aeroplane to crash into it.
-It is on or beyond the ice wall of Antarctica which no one is allowed to go to.
-The meteors are inside it or they just don't exist.
-It is completely transparent to light/doesn't interact with light in any way.

22624

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antartica now revealed

« on: December 19, 2016, 07:09:16 PM »

Well, first of all, we are primates.

no, we're humans.. primates have more chromosomes, no primate has 46 chromosomes, no human has 48 chromosomes, that is called 'a difference'.. we're similar, but we're not one and the same

No. We're primates.
The chromosome count does not determine if you are a primate or not.
Yes, there are differences among primates, that doesn't magically mean some aren't.
For example, some have tails, some don't. Does that mean the ones without tails aren't primates? No.

But perhaps more importantly, we didn't always need to wear animal fur to survive, we just started to need to as we moved into colder climates.
You are also ignoring all the positives, such as our mental abilities and use of tools. We started to loose strength as we didn't need it, we had our claws replaced by more functional hands leaving behind nails.

in 35,000yrs? no mate, you ignored when i explained that usual evolution changes happened over around a 2,000,000 year period, and we've come from cavemen to space travellers in 35,000yrs?

You mean where you baselessly asserted that. Cavemen to space travellers is not usual evolution. That is building upon knowledge, that doesn't require massive changes to DNA.

there's been many findings that prove science wrong, like ancient daggers depicting dinosaurs, the Piri Reis map, baalbek, nasca lines etc

No. There have been many things which people use to claim science is wrong. None that i know of has shown science to be completely wrong.
There Piri Reis map is just an old map of large sections of the world with some significant errors. It doesn't show Antartica.

again, you're wrong, the Piri Reis map DOES show Antarctica, WITHOUT ice.. its there, available for all to look at, the fact you can post on this forum shows you have internet access, a simple search before posting would have been a good idea

No. You're wrong.
The Piri Reis map shows south America with some significant errors which crazy people claim is showing Antarctica. There is no evidence or rational reason to think it actually shows Antarctica.
How about instead of telling others to search for evidence which doesn't exist, you find and provide the evidence?

- the reptilian thing is nothing like it has been portrayed, its been ridiculed because of David Icke, David Icke is ridiculed because in the 80's, he claimed that a lot of high profile people were involved in paedophilia rings.. but now, MANY 80's high profile people have been jailed for paedophilia.. the Annunaki are what he was referring to, again, its LOGICAL, but admittedly, not proven

So are they reptiles or humans? If you are claiming they are actually reptiles, I would say that is not logical.

I'm not religious, but I'm pretty sure if they were simply works of fiction, they wouldn't have been preserved for thousands of years.. they tell a story but from a time when the people had no real knowledge of space and physics

It isn't their truthfulness that has kept them around, but the indoctrination of the people.

that's an opinion, you're entitled to that

Not really an opinion, a conclusion based upon rational thought.
When people stop being indoctrinated, religions die.

What is a baseless opinion is your claim that they must be true or have some truth for them to last so long.

If we got rid of all religion, no religion would match a prior one. If we got rid of all science, we would develop the same stuff again.

if we retranslated religious texts now, with the knowledge we have, the 'beings from above' would translate to 'extraterrestrials', heaven would translate to 'space' and it would all make logical sense

No. It wouldn't. This is because there is no reason to think the angels are extraterrestrials and there is no reason to think heaven, a non-physical realm where people live after they die, would be space.
It is simply inserting what you want it to be.

But that wouldn't be re-translating.
It would be manipulating the text to make it match what you want.

you seem to misunderstand the word 'translate', the Bible for instance has been translated from latin into English, but it was translated thousands of years ago.. before people had the knowledge of space and physics.. so instead of using the word 'extraterrestrials', when referring to visitors from the sky, they used the word 'angels', as they didn't understand what they were looking at when they looked up, they called it 'heaven' instead of 'space'.. and so on

Yes, it was translated, based upon the words people knew, rather than using words which they would have had no idea what it meant. This means you keep the meaning the same, where the words used mean what the people who originally wrote it meant, instead of using different words with different meanings.

i hold my hands up, i made a simple mistake there, apologies

You made a massive one, acting like evolution is just guesswork, like a common theory instead of a scientific one.

on the contrary.. evolution SHOULD be taken as fact, the only thing that doesn't work when talking about evolution, is humans.. we don't fit at all

Then that does give the alien idea significant explanatory power, having them evolve elsewhere. But I am yet to see anything that indicates humans don't fit.

22625

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane

« on: December 19, 2016, 06:56:46 PM »

Can you please stop this "Satan is the good one" thing? Unless you're joking, it sounds really pretentious.

How does it sound pretentious?

It is accepted by quite a few people and makes far more sense than saying God is the good one.

Are you an atheistic satanist?

No. I still think he is fictional, I just accept that God, in the Bible, is far worse than Satan.

22626

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE

« on: December 19, 2016, 01:57:36 PM »

Skip in perpetuity. Just post the experiment of it sticking for a day or so.

If you can't, then you are the one making the false claim.

Give me an extremely large, pressurised 0g environment and a camera and I will.
Otherwise, show me water sticking to a flat plate, or it is unfair to demand we show water sticking to a sphere. And no, I don't mean the plate getting in between the water and Earth, I mean the water sticking to the plate.

Also note: one thing which I'm not sure if it has been said, surface tension is really going to screw you over. There has been a video showing water sticking due to surface tension, but you just reject it as fake.
At the small scale surface tension is much stronger than gravity. I will do the math for this later to show that when I have time.

EDIT: MATH TIME!!!
For a spherical shape (the one which is produced by surface tension), the pressure given is 2*gamma/r.
Gravity doesn't easily give us a pressure, but by considering it as a bulk substance, and using a height, we can get one.
The Force due to gravity is G M m/r^2.
The mass for a particular substance would be V*rho=A*h*rho.
Thus the force for gravity would be G M A h rho/r^2.
Thus the pressure would be G M h rho/r^2
The mass for the sphere is (4/3) Pi r^3*Rho.
Thus the pressure for gravity is (4/3) G Pi r h Rho rho.
Putting in some values, this gives, for a 1 m sphere (assuming the water covers 0.1% of the radius), a pressure due to surface tension of 0.14 Pa, and a pressure due to gravity of 1.5 u Pa.
So surface tension massively beats gravity.
They would be equal when (4/3) G Pi r h Rho rho=2*gamma/r
or r^2*h=2*gamma/((4/3) G Pi Rho rho)
or, taking note that h=r/1000:
r^3=2000*gamma/((4/3) G Pi Rho rho)
thus r=(2000*gamma/((4/3) G Pi Rho rho))^(1/3)
This works out to be roughly 45 m, with a pressure of 0.00317 Pa, and a weight of the sphere of over 2 million tonnes (it has a volume of 391 thousand m^3, and a density of 5510 kg/m^3).
But that is just to make it the same.
You don't want it to be the same for a decent experiment, as it could be due to either.
You want surface tension to be insignificant.
To make it so surface tension is 1% of the pressure due to gravity (so insignificant), we can replace that 2 in the equation above with 200.
This gives us 211 m, and a pressure of 0.00068 Pa for surface tension, and 0.068 Pa for gravity and a weight of the sphere of over 200 billion tonnes.

Once you get me something like that to test it on, I will happily show you.

The rest of your BS is simply drivel and you know it and everyone knows it.

i.e. you have no honest, rational answer and thus need to once again resort to insults and dismissals.

If you believe water on a globe Earth due to gravity

Again, it doesn't need gravity and this has nothing to do with the OP.
Water, without any external forces, will adopt a spherical shape due to it minimising its surface area to volume ratio. Soap bubbles do it for the same reason. The only time that changes is when there are multiple types of surfaces (such as the surface between water and glass as well as water and air, or when it has external forcing acting on it, like air moving at relative speeds or a container pressing against it).

you might as well believe in unicorns (horse + one horn = unicorn. There, I did the equation for you).

No. That would = horsehorn, or hornhorse technically both as addition is commutative. So that doesn't. Try again.
Maybe you would like to convince me of the existence of butterflies, as butter+flies=butterflies?

22627

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane

« on: December 19, 2016, 01:40:55 PM »

Can you please stop this "Satan is the good one" thing? Unless you're joking, it sounds really pretentious.

How does it sound pretentious?

It is accepted by quite a few people and makes far more sense than saying God is the good one.

22628

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)

« on: December 19, 2016, 01:39:16 PM »

It's actually fake, there's a hidden pump. The channel itself is a sort of parody.

Well that's disappointing.
Oh well. But that just shows it's even harder to work.

22629

Flat Earth Debate / Re: go far enough south, the north star disappears below the horizon

« on: December 19, 2016, 01:23:35 PM »

Would you like another example of perspective?
Lets say your lamppost is 5 m high and 0.3 m wide (for simplicity and that would be the light at the top), and lets assume your eye-line is at 2 m (to simplify the math). This means that there is 3 m above and 2 m below and the 0.15 m on either side.
We can now work out the angle of all these.
At 10 m it would go from -11.3 to 16.7 degrees vertically, making a total angle of 28 degrees, and it would be 1.7 degrees wide.
If you go to 100 m, it goes from -1.15 to 1.71 making a total of 2.86, and 10' (arc minutes) wide.
If you go to 1000 m, or 1 km, it goes from -7' to 10', totalling 17', and 1' wide.
At 10 km, it goes from -41" (arc seconds) to 62", totally 103", and 6" wide.
The limit of resolution of the human eye ranges from 20" to 60" and varies slightly between people.
This means it would become too thin to resolve somewhere around 1 km (depending on the exact dimension), and at this point it will begin to blur into the background. Unless it is a point light source, at which point you would start to resolve it at a fairly constant size (plus glare) until it grows to faint.

That can be conspired as an additional part of perspective. The intensity of a light will drop depending on the nature of the light source.
A laser is a focused beam and thus its intensity doesn't significantly drop with distance.
However a point source (or things which behave as one), such as a lamp or the scattering of a laser will have their intensity drop as a factor of 1/r^2.
This is because its light is spread over a fixed range of angles and can be measured in W/sr (steradian, a unit of solid angle).
Assuming you are far enough away such that the area of a spherical cap and a disc is the same, this can be calculated as A/r^2 sr, where A is the area of the spherical cap (or disc, in this case your eye, which remains fixed) and r is the distance to the object.
This means the amount of light your eye receives will be (A/r^2 sr ) (intensity in W/sr) and thus will be proportional to 1/r^2.

So, when the light is far enough away that the intensity of light matches that of the background, you will no longer notice it as a bright light. If it is greater you will notice it as a bright light regardless of how small it is. If the opposite is true, it will be darker, but only if you can resolve it.

If both conditions are met (too small to resolve, not noticeable as a bright light), then you won't notice it/be able to see it.
However, if you use a magnifying device, you can.

A simple everyday example of this are individual sub-pixels of your screen, or the gap between the pixels. You don't notice these because these are too small to resolve and blend in.
But if your entire screen is dark and a single pixel is white, you do notice that.

22630

Flat Earth Debate / Re: go far enough south, the north star disappears below the horizon

« on: December 19, 2016, 12:47:11 PM »

I cannot help it if the simplest of explanations eludes you.

You want to continue to complicate your life by remaining in ignorance, have at it.

No. The simplest of explanations is quite obvious to us.
Earth is round and that is why these stars disappear below the horizon and have the apparent position they do.

However, this does seem to elude you, as does any other explanation as you are yet to provide one which actually works.
We can't really help you if you can't understand why pathetic attempts don't work.

A few little hitches with your perspective idea!

• Polaris is supposedly about 5,000 km above the North Pole. A bit of simple calculation will show that when you get to the equator, 10,000 km away, Polaris would still be almost 26° above the horizon, not on it as we know for a fact.

Translation - If I throw in these BS numbers they look cool, even though they do not mean a
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ thing.

No. These numbers do mean something quite important.
They are based upon how you calculate angles to objects.
It is simple trigonometry.
Construct a right angle triangle.
Start from the star (or object), and go straight down to Earth (technically stopping at the height of your eye level, not the height of the ground or sea level or whatever, but that difference is quite negligible for this calculation). This is one of the sides, with a length of h (for height, not hypotenuse). Now, draw a line on your hypothetical flat Earth from that point to you (the observer) with a distance d, which will be at a right angle to that first line. The angle you need to look up, a, will be the angle between the line of length d, and the hypotenuse.
This can be calculated with simple trigonometry, by observing that the tangent of a is equal to h/d.
This is a key place the FEers get their height of 5000 km from.
It is well established that the distance between the north pole and the equator is 10 000 km (give or take a few km).
It is also well established that the distance between the equator and "45 degrees N" (using quotes because you don't believe it is real) is the same as the distance between "45 degrees N" and the "North Pole", and that the distance between any 2 points of latitude, at the same longitude is proportional to the difference in latitude, with roughly 111 km for each degree, which is why the FES and many other FEers chose an azimithual equidistant projection as that satisfies that criteria.
This means the distance to the equator from "45 degrees north" is 5000 km, as is the distance from the "north pole" to "45 degrees north".
On the equinox, the sun is observed directly over the equator, and at 45 degrees north at the same longitude as the point on the equator it is directly overhead, it has an angle of elevation of 45 degrees, or a=45deg. The same applies for Polaris, but it is directly over the north pole instead of the equator.

This allows us to easily find h.
tan(a)=h/d
tan(45deg)=h/5000 km
1=h/5000 km
5000 km=h.
This firmly establishes their height at 5000 km (But it breaks if you do it elsewhere as you get a different height).

You can then do the opposite to find the angle at other places (feel free to try this with various buildings, just note that if you go too far, you need to take the curve of Earth into account and possibly refraction).
Doing this at the "equator" you get:
tan(a)=h/d
tan(a)=5000 km/10000 km
tan(a)=0.5
a=atan(0.5)
a=26.565 degrees.
So his math or memory was off. It should be slightly more than 26 degrees above the horizon.
Instead it is observed at 0 degrees.
Of course, you can use that to find the height of Polaris on your hypothetical flat Earth.

tan(a)=h/d
tan(0deg)=h/5000 km
0=h/5000 km
0=h
So Polaris has to be on Earth, and thus would be at an angle of 0 for everyone.

You can try and manipulate the numbers a bit to make it work for one point, but you break it for everywhere else.
For example, you could try 100 km, to make it 0.5 degrees at the equator.
But then at 45 degrees north it would only be 1 degree. So it simply doesn't work.
Perspective doesn't cut it.

And yes, that is exactly how perspective works, it is just instead of finding the angle a as the angle of elevation, it finds it as the angular size, and it goes above and below your eye-line. Some will also extend it slightly by calculating what size object would have that angular size at a certain distance

So yes, those numbers mean quite a lot. It means the flat earth model is not capable of explaining the position of Polaris or numerous other celestial objects.
It means perspective simply doesn't explain it.

I say it does. Now its your turn to say, "I say it does not."

Guess what? Just saying it does does nothing for you.
Do the math to show it does, as people have done the math to show or otherwise explained why it doesn't.[/list]

22631

Flat Earth Debate / Re: go far enough south, the north star disappears below the horizon

« on: December 19, 2016, 12:20:24 PM »

4.type: knows the earth is flat but getting a few fucking money from NASA and other institutes  and defends the earth is as a round or defends what his owners said.

That is literally no one.
If people are insane enough to think Earth is flat, NASA wont be employing them.

22632

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE

« on: December 19, 2016, 12:18:10 PM »

So you are just picking 2 random points on the sphere, not any rational choice.
In that case you can't complain about upside down water or water clinging to the bottom, as any point can be the bottom or the top.
You can even do the same with a plate or a bowl, arbitrarily picking one side as up and the other as down.

You are the moron that asked for top or bottom. I told you to make your choice, as water will not stick to any sphere. You present a useless question, so go ahead and pick your useless answer.

No. I'm the intelligent person that sees through your bullshit (as are lots of other people).
The simple fact that you can't find a single up and a single down shows it to be bullshit.
Pick any object on Earth, you can very easily identify a top and a bottom or an up and a down, because you can reference Earth's gravity well.

This means your claim of upside down water makes no sense.

Obviously, you have something to learn about the accepted claim. The accepted claim is water sticks to sphere because of gravity. Not proven. I do not need to prove a negative statement, you ignorant _ _ _ _.

No. You need to prove whatever you claim.
If you wish to claim something is impossible, you need to prove it, especially as you are trying to use it as an argument for another claim.

Or, if you want to play that way, fine. I don't need to prove a negative claim, specifically the claim that water will not fly away from a spinning spherical object, or that water won't adopt a flat surface.

Funny how flat earthers will often use an "accepted claim" that water will form a flat surface, based upon simple observations, to try and prove Earth is flat, demanding other people prove it doesn't, while now you outright reject this accepted claim with no evidence or rational basis and demand people prove what has already been proven.

Plenty of people have already disproven your crap, such as through math, explaining that things are falling with a greater acceleration than they would need to stay stuck to a spinning Earth.

But again, that wasn't what the OP was about. The OP was primarily focused on surface tension, which will naturally result in a spherical shape as it is the shape with the lowest surface to volume ratio. As such, water will adopt a spherical shape due to surface tension alone.

Pusillanimous BS...snipped because it is an unprovable lie.

i.e. you have no rational, honest way to refute it, so you just dismiss it as a lie.

Is your keyboard or smartphone mission critical, jasper?

No. So if it can survive water don't you think NASA would have made far more important equipment even better at surviving?
Or do you think they are complete morons that will go:
"Well, this isn't important, lets make sure we can stick it in water and it will be fine. WOH, THIS ONE IS REALLL IMPORTANT, lets leave everything exposed so breathing on it fucks it."
Seriously, that is so insane it isn't funny.

Grab a sphere. Pour some water on it. See if the water remains there in perpetuity. If it does, come back here and post your results. If it does, come back and post your results. Either way, you are left being the one who believes it does with absolutely ZERO evidence.

Impossible.
If I need to wait for it to remain there in perpetuity, i.e. forever, how will it ever be done for me to come back and post the results?

And like I said, that would require doing it in a 0g environment to accurately simulate Earth. This is because Earth isn't being held above a massive ball but instead is in free fall quite some distance from it.
This has been done on the ISS in a video you dismiss as fake.
So what is left to do? If I provide results or evidence you just dismiss it as fake.
If I provide explanations based upon physics with plenty of observations and other evidence to back it up, you just dismiss it.

The simple fact is that you don't give a shit about the truth. All you care about is promoting your bullshit and attacking anyone that sees through it.

And have you done my test yet?
Get a plate, hold it in various orientations and squirt water onto it.
Does it stick?
No. It only remains there when the plate acts as a barrier between the water and a point closer to the centre of Earth.
By your reasoning, that means water wouldn't stay put on a flat Earth and thus Earth can't be flat.

22633

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane

« on: December 19, 2016, 12:02:16 PM »

don't you wonder why in the OT G-D was exactly the opposite of the NT ?

is just pure luck? or is there a pattern there?

Well, one option would be that the NT it isn't actually God, but instead it is the good one, Satan, with Jesus either being Satan or working with Satan rather than god.

But the more rational conclusion would be that the people that made it up were more civilised and thus tried to cover up a lot of the abhorrent crap and change the rules.

22634

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)

« on: December 19, 2016, 11:55:40 AM »

A useful check valve mechanism can provide. I think so. A mechanism should be airtight and interrupted by auto on/off. Probably works but we need to see in an experiment.

Nope. A check valve mechanism will simply increase the required pressure to lift the water in the tube so instead the water will sit slightly lower in the tube than in the tank.
At best it matches.

The only way to make it work is to have a pump, but that pump will use more energy than you get from the turbine.

This is basically a more complicated version of something known as Boyle's flask.
This has been looked at many times, and the only way to have it flow is to have some form of energy input.

Here is a video on it:


It shows simple fluids don't work.
The only substances which do work are those with trapped air or which produce air, such as carbonated soft drink and carbonated beer.
But as it does it, the air is released.

22635

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)

« on: December 19, 2016, 02:34:23 AM »

İntikam, this method is not sound. Contact me privately, and let's sort out the details.

You are which John Davis? Yourself or Jroa? And why don't you contact me privately for sort out the details. 

Why don't you respond to my post which showed why you were wrong?

I will create an experiment to show the method is working but still I could not provide the environment, caused by some personal workload problems. Next a few days i'll do that and you'll see whats happens.

I explained why it wouldn't work.

Yes, there is greater pressure at the bottom, and that will cause water to flow up the tube, but only to the level of the tank. It won't magically cause it to go further.

22636

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antartica now revealed

« on: December 19, 2016, 01:29:14 AM »

I find this funny. Those arguing that our perception of earth has been intentionally hidden are constantly asked for an accurate map matching all the "real" flight routes and times.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66391.0

Yes, you are asked for an accurate flat map. Something which would be extremely easy if Earth was actually flat, but impossible if Earth was a globe.

That isn't a rhetorical trick. It is to show the insanity of your claims.
If Earth was flat, there would be one accurate flat map, and everyone would converge on that. Instead we get a bunch of different ones which never match up to reality.

And yes, the real flight routes, the ones which exist.

22637

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)

« on: December 19, 2016, 01:26:52 AM »

İntikam, this method is not sound. Contact me privately, and let's sort out the details.

You are which John Davis? Yourself or Jroa? And why don't you contact me privately for sort out the details. 

Why don't you respond to my post which showed why you were wrong?

22638

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is the sun in this photo?

« on: December 19, 2016, 01:25:13 AM »

I can surely prove times, dates, however its meaningless if people here believe the sun can be at a 0 degrees altitude in the provided pictures.

And how do you plan on doing that? Especially considering it requires proving the phone was set correctly and the images haven't been tampered with.

Also, what is wrong with the sun being that low?

22639

Flat Earth Debate / Re: go far enough south, the north star disappears below the horizon

« on: December 19, 2016, 01:23:01 AM »

Why do all the globalist lie? I believe a flat earthers already explained why the north star dissapears on a flat earth. Just because you either did not understand or do not wish to acknowledge it, does not make it go away. So stop pretending like it never happened.

We aren't the ones lying.
No Flat Earther has ever been able to provide an honest, rational explanation for why Polaris disappears on a flat Earth.
If you think they have, why don't you try and explain it rather than insulting others by accusing them of lying?

We will stop pretending it never happened when it actually happens.

22640

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat earth unanswered questions

« on: December 19, 2016, 01:21:02 AM »

Condescending, insult ridden tirade #1:

While your comments are condescending and insult ridden, I wouldn't call it a tirade.
My comments are none.

Your second comment is somewhat more of a tirade, and is condescending.

1 - Yes, that's right. It isn't a question. However FEers haven't been able to provide a rational, honest response for why Polaris appears as it does.
2 - Correct again, and once again, FEers can't explain it.
3 - Yes, a very poor question. It is effectively asking why the sun only illuminates part of Earth, and why it is that particular part. The example provided in the image is at the equinox, where half of Earth is illuminated. Again, the FEers are yet to provide an honest, rational answer.
4 - How condescending of you. Did you look at the link? It shows a problem with the position of the sun as observed in reality vs a flat Earth. It is one of countless examples. So in the sky doesn't cut it.
5 - Again, it has a link attached. Here it is more asking how the sun manages to heat up the hemispheres so evenly when the southern hemisphere has 3 times the area.
6 - Try picking one or explaining any.
7 - Telling us to go look elsewhere isn't answering the question. If you wanted to do that, why not just start out with that and leave it at that.
9 - So no answer then?

22641

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat earth unanswered questions

« on: December 18, 2016, 02:17:31 PM »

All of these questions have been asked and answered.
Possibly not to your satisfaction, but that's more your problem than ours.

Feel free to launch into a condescending, insult ridden tirade to express your indignation.

No. That is a problem for the FEers as they need to make up complete and utter crap which defies reality to try and pretend their pathetic model works.
It isn't our problem that they can't provide sound answers to back up their delusions.

22642

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat earth unanswered questions

« on: December 18, 2016, 12:49:59 PM »

Here are 9 flat earth unanswered questions for flat stationary earth believers. I would love for someone to answer these, as I am not able to.

1: Polaris can't decide where to go! http://debunkingflatearth.blogspot.cl/2016/02/debunking-flat-earth-how-polaris-proves.html

2: South celestial pole is everywhere! http://i.imgur.com/AJvO9pw.png

3: So.... how does the sun illuminate light? http://imgur.com/CHSpwlC

4: Where's your sun? http://imgur.com/WDFmQ3Y

5: Another question for how the sun illuminates light... http://imgur.com/Lr3O3NS

6: Flight paths? A) https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/

B) https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateFlatEarth/comments/5fcx8l/the_worlds_longest_flights_xpost_from_rflatearth/

17h: Qantas A380-800 – Dallas (DFW) to Sydney (SYD)

17h 15m: Emirates Boeing 777-200LR – Auckland (AKL) to Dubai (DXB)

16h 20m: United Dreamliner 787-9 – San Francisco (SFO) to Singapore (SIN)

16h: Delta 777-200LR – Atlanta (ATL) to Johannesburg (JNB)

15h 50m: Etihad 777-200LR – Abu Dhabi (AUH) to Los Angeles (LAX)

C) http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

7) Ships and buildings below the horizon?



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64279.0

Math!





9) Anticrepuscular rays?

A) http://i.imgur.com/FC9Zvfc.jpg

B) http://earthsky.org/earth/how-to-see-anticrepuscular-rays

No one is able to honestly and rationally answer them using a flat Earth model because it simply doesn't match reality and several of these show that Earth is round.

22643

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antartica now revealed

« on: December 18, 2016, 12:48:16 PM »

Again with the compulsive lying!!! This is why people think that earth is a giant ball. People like onebigmonkey stretches facts just to fit their needs. Does this look like they flew OVER ANTARCTICA? Nope! You big hairy lying machine!

No. That would be you stretching the facts.
Sure, they didn't fly over Antarctica, they flew over the Antarctic sea ice.
That is something which would make absolutely no sense on a flat Earth where that route would be so much longer it isn't funny.
So this still shows that Earth is round.

That is why so many retards think Earth is flat; some dishonest troll/con man finds one tiny point that is wrong (and fairly irrelevant) and then blows it massively out or proportion to pretend Earth can't be round or that people are lying.

22644

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antartica now revealed

« on: December 18, 2016, 12:44:18 PM »

evolution for a start, we did not evolve from primates, we have less fur (we had to wear animal fur to survive), less agility, less strength, we have to cut our nails etc.. if anything, we're a DEvolution

Well, first of all, we are primates.
But perhaps more importantly, we didn't always need to wear animal fur to survive, we just started to need to as we moved into colder climates.
You are also ignoring all the positives, such as our mental abilities and use of tools. We started to loose strength as we didn't need it, we had our claws replaced by more functional hands leaving behind nails.

there's been many findings that prove science wrong, like ancient daggers depicting dinosaurs, the Piri Reis map, baalbek, nasca lines etc

No. There have been many things which people use to claim science is wrong. None that i know of has shown science to be completely wrong.
There Piri Reis map is just an old map of large sections of the world with some significant errors. It doesn't show Antartica.
I wont bother with the rest as they have no bearing to this thread.

I'm all for a good conspiracy, but they stop with irrefutable evidence, like the fake moon landings (evidence proves we've landed at least something on it), the reptilian monarchy (although that does have an interesting base story, it's just been blown way out of proportion), but most of all, the flat earth faith (it's not a theory as it has zero supporting evidence)

And there is no a shred of decent evidence for any of them.

as for primates, we're taught, as fact, that we're a direct descendent of primates, but the killer blow is that we have less chromosomes.. ALL primates have 48 in total, ALL humans have 46 (except downsyndrome who have 47, I wouldn't want to sound like I've not researched)

that means we're not cut from the same cloth

No. We are taught as fact that we are primates, and that us and other modern primates share a common ancestor.

Yes, we have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs, or 22 pairs plus sex) while other primates have 48.
This isn't a killer blow as our chromosome 2 matches 2 chromosomes of other primates, indicating a chromosome fusion or splitting event (with fusion being more likely), backed up by additional telomeric sequences in the middle, rather than just the ends, and by a second centromere. A chromosome didn't just disappear.

So no, this further supports common ancestry.

losing chromosomes, losing agility and strength, having more to deal with (nails etc) would NOT be classed as evolution, like I said, it would be a DEvolution

there's 14 stages between primates and us, we're not as close as we're led to believe

You mean chromosomes fusing?
That has very little weight either way. I would say it is neutral.
Did we need agility and strength, or was that just a waste meaning having them would be a negative?
Yes, we have nails, instead of claws.
Again, you are looking at it completely one sided.

I'm not religious, but I'm pretty sure if they were simply works of fiction, they wouldn't have been preserved for thousands of years.. they tell a story but from a time when the people had no real knowledge of space and physics

It isn't their truthfulness that has kept them around, but the indoctrination of the people.

If we got rid of all religion, no religion would match a prior one. If we got rid of all science, we would develop the same stuff again.

if we retranslated religious texts now, with the knowledge we have, the 'beings from above' would translate to 'extraterrestrials', heaven would translate to 'space' and it would all make logical sense

but that would cause massive unrest, so it has to be kept quiet until if/when we're revisited

But that wouldn't be re-translating.
It would be manipulating the text to make it match what you want.

evolution DOES have a direction

Yes, but not in the way you are suggesting.
The direction constantly changes with the environment.
It doesn't always favour brute strength or agility.
The only thing it constantly favours is the ability to have children which go on to reproduce.

remember, it's still Einstein's THEORY of evolution

No. It is the theory of evolution, meaning it has an abundant amount of evidence to back it up and is a scientific theory (the closest we have to facts) rather than a mere hypothesis.
Remember, it is still the theory of gravity, just like everything else accepted by modern science (even the shape of Earth), is a scientific theory.
P.S. It is typically Darwin associated with evolution and Einstein with relativity.

the outside intervention theory explains it well, to date, the most logical in my opinion

Yes, it can explain it. That doesn't mean it is the most logical.
It requires more assumptions, including visitation by aliens that stayed for a while to slowly manipulate us.
Evolution makes more sense than that.

It also depends on if you are just having that as an add on to evolution or to discard evolution. If the latter, then you just push the problem back, so it doesn't actually help at all.

I'd say instead of trying to get at least ONE over on me, concentrate on trying to prove a flat earth..

Then stop bringing up irrelevant bullshit and stay on topic.

22645

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is the sun in this photo?

« on: December 18, 2016, 12:04:44 PM »

How is that inconsistent with your picture?

My picture(s) clearly indicate the sun is significantly above the horizon

Based on your picture, the sun could be anywhere near the horizon.

Clearly above the Horizon.

No. It isn't.
Your pictures do not indicate the sun is significantly above the horizon.
The location of the sun in those pictures is quite ambiguous.

22646

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is the sun in this photo?

« on: December 17, 2016, 11:45:47 PM »

You are still yet to give us a reason to trust those times.

22647

Flat Earth Debate / Re: go far enough south, the north star disappears below the horizon

« on: December 17, 2016, 02:37:59 PM »

"go far enough south, the north star disappears below the horizon" due to diverging lines of perspective

No.
Perceptive makes things smaller. It doesn't magically change their direction.

If I go far enough west. I can no longer see the lamp post outside my apartment, even though there are no obstructions.

Hint: It is called perspective. The farther you get away from things the smaller they appear until everything just merges together...

Yes, it makes things smaller, not magically lower. That explanation would make sense if it got fainter and fainter as you went further away. It doesn't explain why it drops below the horizon.
At 45 degrees north, it has an angle of elevation of 45 degrees.
At 90 degrees north, it is straight up.
This means, based upon the 5000 km distance between the north pole and 45 degrees north, it would have to be 5000 km high, above the north pole (and it should be roughly half as bright as at the NP).
If you move to the equator (10 000 km from the NP), it should be at an angle of elevation of 26.6 degrees, and it should be roughly one 5th as bright.
If you move to 45 degrees south (15 000 km from the NP), it should be at an angle of elevation of 18.4 degrees and it should be roughly one 10th as bright.
If you move to 90 degrees south (20 000 km from the NP), it should be at an angle of elevation of 14 degrees and it should be roughly one 17th as bright.
Instead of this, we find that at the equator it has an angle of elevation of roughly 0 degrees and it is roughly the same brightness for everyone that sees it.

So no, perspective doesn't explain it, AT ALL.

Regardless, If I can stand directly under something that is above my head (As Polaris would be on at some point north of me) and I start walking south, I start to see declination, and eventually I will not see it. Earth round or flat, that is true.

But they way they disappear can be completely different. If they are a light source, on a flat Earth, the angle slowly drops but it remains visible until it grows so faint it blends in with the background, having a small enough angular size that you can't distinguish it from the background. On a round Earth, it could disappear like that, or it could "drop" due to you moving along the surface of Earth, changing the angle between the tangent at your point and it, until eventually it drops below horizon, being obstructed by Earth.

For a flat Earth, regardless of how far away the object is, the angle to the object is always positive (i.e. it is always above a line parallel to the surface of Earth).
It would be given by this formula:
theta=atan(h/d) where d is (in the flat Earth case) 111.11111 km*(90 - latitude/degrees N) assuming the object is over the north pole.
For this to approach 0, d needs to be infinite or h needs to be 0. But nothing should ever change which side it is on. If it is above you, it will always have a positive angle of elevation. If it is below you, it will always have a negative angle of elevation. Nothing would ever go from positive to negative (or vice versa) by you moving laterally.

A round Earth is more complicated, where it would be:
theta=atan(h/d)-alpha, where for an object above the north pole, alpha would be 90 degrees - latitude, and is based upon the difference between the tangent at your location and the tangent directly below the object.
h and d are more complicated, but for an object at the north pole, h is the height of the object above the north pole, plus your height below the north pole, and d is the distance from the axis of rotation to you.
For a very distant object such that h>>d, that effectively becomes 90-(90-latitude)=latitude.

For polaris, it matches the round Earth situation, not the flat Earth.

As for your comment about fading away, that is what happens if it was due to perspective. The light gets fainter and fainter until you can no longer distinguish it from the background (assuming it is small enough).

22648

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is Mainstream Science Wrong?

« on: December 17, 2016, 02:26:35 PM »

Dark energy is as silly as when Newton said the Universe held constant and didn't collapse because of God's will. You might as well be telling me the earth accelerate forever without end.

You might as well tell me earth is an infinite non euclidean plane with a firmament on top.

The facts speak for themselves. The Earth is Flat.

No. The facts just sit there not speaking at all.
You need to find them or have other people speak for them.

When you do find them it is quite obvious, Earth is round.
It requires so much ignorance or bullshit to pretend it is flat.

22649

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE

« on: December 17, 2016, 02:24:55 PM »

Like someone is going to turn loose water in an electrified environment...

So you're just ignoring that video and going on with your (imo) trolling?

My post addressed the video. Who is going to risk turning loose water in a supposed space-age trash can full of supposed mission critical electronic panels? That video is pure BS.

Go ahead and pour water on your keyboard...just for posting that troll of a post.

Honest, the water is just fine for your keyboard...won't have an affect at all after a couple of days.

Well yes, most keyboards would be fine. They have drainage built in.

Regardless, were are all the exposed bits of electronics which would be fried by this?
Put water on your screen, it doesn't explode, the water just sits there.

Do you also completely lack an understanding of how electronics work?

I also see that you are deflecting away from the main point and are still yet to explain why water wouldn't stick to a sphere or make a spherical shape.

22650

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view

« on: December 17, 2016, 02:19:11 PM »

The air is the only thing keeping it attached to the wagon's movements (rotational).

it's not because it's "in the air" that the movement of the building/train the pendulum is in will not affect the object.

Again, what is keeping it attached?
What is keeping the movements matched?

at one moment i thought you understood when you said "If the train is in motion, with no acceleration, then yes, everything will move with the train, assuming that was already in motion."'

that's excatly what happens with the earth. Everything is in motion when installing the pendulum, and everything will stay that way. Only gravity and the pendulum movement counter that. Without gravity, the pendulum would not have "moved" (with reference to the gradation)

No. It isn't. It is completely different to what happens with Earth.
Rotational motion requires an acceleration.

Without acceleration, things move in a straight line.
This means if you are holding the ball/pendulum, and then let it go, it continues to move in a straight line.
If your object (e.g. train) is moving in a straight line, then the stuff keeps moving with it, as they both move in straight lines which are parallel.
If your object is rotating then while you are holding the ball, you accelerate it, as soon as you let it go, it continues on its straight path, no longer following the curve due to rotation.

acceleration means change of velocity upward. But the speed is constant so there is NO acceleration.

No.
Acceleration means a change in velocity. It is only loosely linked with speed. Any change in speed requires an acceleration, but you can accelerate things without changing their speed which is what occurs in uniform circular motion.

Velocity is a vector quantity.
This means it has direction.
This means a velocity of [10,0,0] is different to a velocity of [0,10,0] and thus requires an acceleration. In this case, the acceleration times time would be [-10,10,0], or 10/sqrt(2) in the [-1,1,0] direction.

Things continue to travel with a set velocity unless they are accelerated (including by wind resistance slowing them down). This means a straight line.
Curving the path requires acceleration.

For uniform circular motion, there is constant acceleration towards the centre. This acceleration is omega^2*r.

You ignoring this isn't going to make it go away.
You repeatedly lying about how reality works isn't going to change it to make the pendulum work how you want it to.

So you are going to need to tell us what is keeping the pendulum rotating with Earth rather than appealing to magic.