### 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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
31
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Artemis Project
« on: July 27, 2019, 12:27:47 PM »
It might be reaching escape velocity, Rab. Look at the calculator I posted:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html

If you put in 1 and 1 for the Mass and Radius the escape velocity is 25008.493 mph

If you put in 1 and 1.1 for the Mass and Radius then the escape velocity drops to 23844.662 mph.

Adjust the radius down from there. The earth is also "moving," etc. There are plenty of ways they could be claiming to reach escape velocity as advertised.

I’ll ask again, Tom.  Where are you going with this, if anywhere?

You keep quoting escape velocity numbers, fine, but why?

In case you guys haven't noticed, Tom is simply derailing the thread by causing everyone to go round in circles saying the same thing over and over. He is fully aware of what you are all saying. But he will keep hammering at one line of semantics to prevent the discussion going anywhere by getting bogged down in more detailed technicalities and minutiae while not addressing any point.

32
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Eratosthenes Shadow Experiment Is Inconclusive
« on: July 27, 2019, 12:18:19 PM »
The results of Eratosthenes Shadow Experiment are inconclusive because the experiment can also be interpreted under a Flat Earth model as well.

So after all these years,  who in the Globe Earth community has verified Eratosthenes’ experiment by actually verifying that Earths’ individual landmass’s and canals conform, calculate, measure to a sphere with a 3959 mile radius?  What's his name and history?

You really have no good knowledge of history, do you?

First off, Eratosthenes never set out to prove the shape of the earth or the sphericity of the rarth with a specific radius. Based on the knowledge of his time from the observations philosophers (that's what scientists were called then),  he already accepted that the earth was a sphere. All Eratosthenes was after was to measure the circumference of that sphere. And he did a damn good job of it too.

At his time, his peers reviewed what he did and accepted his observations and calculations. His "followers didn't believe in him". Other philosophers reviewed what he did and confirmed his calculations and observations and so his results were accepted. At least by a good number of philosophers. There were still those who refused to accept because they couldn't look beyond their own beliefs. Afterall, "it looked flat to them"

Throughout history, since Eratosthenes,  many people have conducted the same or similar observations and calculations and have ended up with the same results. So by virtue of peer review, his conclusions have still been accepted. Better equipment for observation, and knowledge accumulated over the centuries have refined the figure but his errors are completely understandable and acceptable.

Even today, with flat earth research consisting maily of YouTube videos, youtubers like Bob the Science Guy and Blue Marble Science have conducted the same experiment and have reached the same conclusions. And to show that the earth couldn't be flat, they added a third location. 2 locations can be used to prop up a flat earth with a nearby sun. 3 locations will conclusively show if the earth was flat or curved.

Wanna guess which one it shows?

33
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Ham Radio moonbounce ... and radio towers
« on: July 11, 2019, 02:26:15 PM »

Normal hardworking people would never engage longer than a couple of days with flatties.

Quite an indictment, won't you say?

34
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Experiments
« on: July 06, 2019, 05:35:39 PM »
Experiment for UA is so simple that anyone can perform it in daily life.

Just do a simple things: STAND, WALK, RUN.. that's all.

How does that work?

Let me see. I'm standing right now.....so....what? Bibbitty boppitty boo! UA!

How will such an experiment go? What am i measuring? What am I observing?

35
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Rockets cannot propel in space. Therefore no globe picture could have been taken
« on: June 30, 2019, 10:45:35 PM »
There was this paper, Computational Analysis of Bell Nozzles by Beena D. Baloni, Sonu P. Kumar, S. A. Channiwala" in the Proceedings of the 4 th International Conference of Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer (FFHMT'17) Toronto, Canada – August 21 – 23, 2017 that you might look up.

It shows the bell nozzle:

And the computed temperatures, pressures and velocities at key points as in:

Note the pressure gradient along the throat and bell that trades the high pressure and temperature for a greatly increased velocity, reduced temperature and greatly reduced pressure.

This shaped nozzle is known as the de Laval nozzle and "was originally developed in the 19th century by Gustaf de Laval for use in steam turbines. It was first used in an early rocket engine developed by Robert Goddard, one of the fathers of modern rocketry. It has since been used in almost all rocket engines."
So the total thrust is: Force = (mass flow rate) * Ve + (Pe - Po) * Ae. Maybe Robert Goddard, Walter Thiel and NASA were right after all!

The nozzle only utilizes Bernoulli’s principle because it creates a lower pressure at the end of the nozzle. Still the force acting to the exhaust is pressure gradient force, not the rocket
Yes, "utilizes Bernoulli’s principle because it creates a lower pressure at the end of the nozzle" and in the process that exhaust gas is greatly accelerated from about 720 m/s at the nozzle entry to about 4200 m/s at the exit.

Now what force causes that acceleration? That force is exerted by the nozzle which is fixed to the rocket.

So the force acting to the exhaust is pressure gradient force supplied by the rocket.
You cannot escape the simple fact that the force to accelerate that exhaust gas has to be supplied by the rocket.

But if you disagree with Robert Goddard's rocket thrust equation
please present your own Tatumsid's rocket thrust equation that shows how the thrust depends on (mass flow rate), (air density) or (air pressure) and anything else that you need.

If you fail to present an equation that fits what anyone can observe I'd say we're done here.

The force is provided by pressure gradient force. There’s already and equation for it.

https://www.shodor.org/os411/courses/_master/tools/calculators/pgf/index.html

It says the pressure gradient force moves air from high pressure to low. This would be the opposite direction of the rocket.

Doesn’t the gas move in the opposite direction of the rocket. Isn’t high pressure moving to low pressure?

FINALLY!

36
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Jerry Williams (AKA Greater Sapien) flies non-stop from Sydney to Johannesburg.
« on: June 30, 2019, 10:20:26 PM »
Tom Bishop is even more of a slippery eel than the usual disambiguators in FE. He will do everything to avoid answering the actual question.

Isn't that right, Tom?

Or is it the Flat Earth BiPolar movement's belief that thebattack on Pearl Harbour was staged? Faked? Part of the conspiracy?

37
##### Flat Earth General / Re: How does the conspiracy work?
« on: June 15, 2019, 02:02:06 AM »
Danang, you keep asking people to make their own observations, do their own research. But when they do and come to the conclusion that the earth isn't flat, you immediately dismiss them and claim them brainwashed. You, wise and the rest.

How does that square with being "open minded"

38
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Any former FEB around?
« on: May 04, 2019, 01:49:58 AM »
Fight The Flat Earth also interviewed 2 former flat earthers on his YouTube channel. But it seems YouTube flatearthers and forum flat earthers don't mix.

They don't seem to like each other too. As far as I can tell, each call the other Controlled Opposition.

39
##### Flat Earth General / Re: What's it like living as a FE believer?
« on: May 04, 2019, 12:30:27 AM »

10 years ago, the believers of this movement were one in ten thousand. Three years ago, he was one of a thousand people. and one in ten people today believes or have doubts in the flat earth. at the end of this year, the number of believers in the flat world will be equated or about with the number of believers in the round world. this is a technique and scientific movement and its pioneers are scientific people, certainly not ordinary people.

I am curious, where do you get your stats?  Are you claiming 10% of all people have doubts of a round earth?  Or are you just "guessing"?  Because if you are a "pioneer" and a "scientific" person, I think it is irresponsible to make claims with out evidence backing it up.  If it is your opinion, you should make that clear.

Oh he has his data sources alright. The same sources that say Qantas airline murder passengers by the plane load. Yes, he has his data sources.

40
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Telescopes and Viewing the ISS and satellites
« on: May 04, 2019, 12:27:11 AM »
Stop stop. Where are the GPS satellites? Why are they not visible? They also had to get into the camera! You will not find any pictures, GPS satellites - which move along the meridians. And you after this - still claim that the earth is a ball?

Did you read any of the above thread at all? Including the pictures showing you the gps satellites against a background of moving stars?

The stars seem to be "hauling ass" and the satellites are not because they are more or less stationary avove the ground. Satellites and ground are moving at the same rate in comparison to the stars hence the relative motion in the gif image.

But let me guess, "it's fake! Fake I tell ya!! Faaaake!!!"

41
##### Flat Earth General / Re: moon landing
« on: April 26, 2019, 05:25:18 AM »
Nobody has given any evidence to back up their claims other than following an official narrative.

Please explain to me why 'official narrative' is inherently untrustworthy? Your whole claim is based on the assumption that anything that is 'official narrative' must be wrong because it is 'official narrative'.

Why?

You do realise that the reasoning 'it's untrue because it's untrue' is not exactly proof of anything?

(I know you won't answer. You'll duck the question. But I love to be surprised by a straight answer at least once)
Funny how you avoid what I've just said.

Funny how you ignore the evidence provided above. An independent German observatory was able to recieve and record Apollo mission transmissions. But I guess that is "official narrative". A small town newspaper carries a report of a small town amateur radio ham recieves Apollo transmission, but that also has to be fake, right? Because Reasons.

But in true flart earth conspiracy mode, thise must be ignored and even not responded to and something else must always be brought up as the smoking gun. And when that is debunked or explained, a flerf will double down on his belief and ignore thenexplanations giving and immediately gish gallop onto something else.

But then, it is all official narrative. So it must be false because reasons.

42
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Shape of the Moon
« on: April 26, 2019, 01:03:06 AM »
if flat earth modal are truth why does moon has such an strange shape?
i mean why don't we have an uniformed moon?

You can't really say 'the moon is round and therefor the earth is round'. That's like saying 'that car is red therefor my bike is red'.

While it is true that the shape of the moon and the shape are caused by the same thing (gravity), it's not enough to just look up at something in the sky and draw conclusions on the shape of your own world.

What if you looked at the sun in stead? Would the question 'if the sun is a hot round ball of gas and therefor the earth is too' make sense?
i didn't say because moon is round therefore earth should be too!
what i'm saying is if flat earth modals are truth then what did damage the moon? what can in a close system like ours(according to flat earth modals)do this to the moon?

Heard of the guy on YouTube that calls himself Flat earth Jesus? He claims the moon was made by giants who dug out the material used from the Grand Canyon and filled it with helium and sent it up to the firmament where the bubling up from the molten rock caused the craters.

Evidence?

Only "just look at it. It has to be."

43
##### Flat Earth General / Re: moon landing
« on: April 26, 2019, 12:54:57 AM »
An interesting addition to this particular thread is that all those who have written in support of the moon landings have given evidence to back up their belief while thise who have written in support of conspiracy theories have provided only "I don't believe the narrative" and "I heard that"

Like someone said early in this discussion, no one says you shouldn't question what you heard. But cherry picking what yiu accept as evidence, that's just lazy.

44
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Forever falling satellites
« on: April 23, 2019, 12:44:48 AM »
/quote]
Yes, "they say" and "they say" you can invest you money in some Nigerian bank and . . . . . . . .

Easy Rab. My In-Law married a Nigerian. And I can guarantee you that them Nigerian scammers haven't caught on to scamming westerners with perpetual motion machines!

45
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Those search engines
« on: April 23, 2019, 12:39:12 AM »
Long story short, what faded mike is trying to insinuate here it that tha conspirecuh is on to him and so they are doing everything in their power to cover up da troof by hiding search results on his computer.

Because the results he got do not confirm his bias.

46
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Forever falling satellites
« on: April 22, 2019, 11:04:26 PM »
I'll try give a very simplified examplae. I'm sure one of the other guys here can give more details.

Rotating wheels on earth will ALWAYS loose energy to friction. So a perpetually rotating wheel without regular influx of "new" energu is impossible.

For satellites, yes they move at a speed that causes them to "miss" the earth as they fall under gravity but there is still enough substance at their altitudes that creates some friction causing them to loose speed and begin to fall more closer to the earth. That's why they carry propellant and booster rockets to regularise their orbits.

Take as an example Intelsat's satellite in geosynchronous orbit that lost it's ability to adjust it's orbit not too long ago.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/04/22/intelsat-declares-drifting-satellite-total-loss/

At the end of their service life or before satellites run out of propellant, they are pushed into lower or higher orbits. Lower so they fall back into the earth in the quickest time possible or higher so they orbit the sun and not the earth per se or to have a very high orbit that the processes of fallinf back into the earth will take pretty much forever. This is done to prevent them crashing into other satellites or just becoming nuisances.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/spacecraft-graveyard/en/

47
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Explanation for Planets
« on: April 15, 2019, 10:09:53 AM »
Yeah going through that process on a phone is quite a bit more obnoxious.

Can you do another list-thingy and show how  it's done?

48
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Explanation for Planets
« on: April 15, 2019, 09:48:17 AM »
Thanks.
I tried that but couldn't get the image on. Maybe 'cos I'm using a mobile phone to post.

49
##### Flat Earth General / Flat Earth Explanation for Planets
« on: April 15, 2019, 09:02:55 AM »
When most flat earthers are asked what the stars and planets in the sky are, the most common explanation is that they are lights in the firmament either above, below or embeded in. When asked what planets are, the most common  answer is that they are wandering stars. So same as stars but they....wander.

A number of flat earthers have taken videos of stars and planets, showing shimmering objects and have taken these as proof that these "objects" are in the "waters above" or at least that the planets are "not what we are told". But by far the most common flat earth explanation is that these objects are simply lights and are not physical objects in any way.

I saw a picture taken by an amature astronomer of some of Jupiter's moons. In particular, callisto is seen to throw a shadow on the Jovian surface.

Now if these objects are simply lights, how do they create shadows?

Since any amature astronomer can make these observations and see the light purported to be Jupiter, and see the lights ourported to be it's moons, and see these lights cast a shadow on another light, how is this explained in flat earth?

I wish I could put up a licture here but I don't know how to do that. So here's a link to a website having the picture.

https://britastro.org/node/9502

50
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: non-believers
« on: April 02, 2019, 09:48:37 PM »
So he has a right to punch.
Yes. If someone is continually harassing you and following you around, you have the right to defend yourself, even if it requires the use of physical force.

That's not accurate.  You have a right to defend yourself.  But unless your life is in direct danger or physical contact was initiated by the harassing party, you using physical force against the harasser would be battery and you would find yourself in handcuffs in the back of a police vehicle.

Well I wonder why cahrges weren't pressed against Buzz. I would have liked to see the reaction of a judge to someone harassing a National Jero, calling him a liar, a fraud and claiming his life's work was simply to decieve and defraud.

Reminds me on a man who walked in on some miscreant trying to rape his child. The miscreant's mugshot had him with both eyes swollen shut, cracked lips and blood everywhere. The sheriff said about the father "he has done nothing wrong in my book. I have nothing to charge him with"

51
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: 15º per hour (Behind the Curve)
« on: April 02, 2019, 09:37:18 PM »
My formula is flawless.

It is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

It was peer reviewed in the finest journal on Optics: Journal of Optics Letters.

What the readers can observe is your full cognitive dissonance, a condition which unfortunately precludes you from facing reality.

Reality is starring you right in the face.

Here is my formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

A total victory for FE.

Just as a pre-flight check of my sanity, can you point out that:

A) You derived the formula, prove that. As I google about, 'your' formula appears kinda nowhere.
B) It is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division. And again, it's your formula. Citation requested.
c) It was peer reviewed in the finest journal on Optics: Journal of Optics Letters. Citation requested.

Simple requests, I think?

Simple? This is Sandy we're talking about here!

Can we please just ignore him when he gets hung up on his Sagnac-or-no-sagnac-that-is-the-question ? He uses it to derail threads that FE find very uncomfortable

52
##### Flat Earth General / Re: 24 hours sun in Antarctica
« on: April 02, 2019, 09:28:28 PM »
Intikam's only reaction to 24 hours Sunlight in Antarctica is "CGI". When pressed to prove it, he will go no further than "it's obvious" or "see shadows" failing to comprehend thag there is oodles of evidence, both videos and eye witness reports on the phenomenon. Unfortunately, for most flat earthers, that is the default position.

I will loke to add to the OP. Ushuaia is considered the aouthernmost city in the world. It is inhabited all year round and regularly has days with up to 17 hours of sunlight and other days with just 6 hours of sunlight. With the sun zipping along faster on the flat earth during the winter months, how will the spot light remain on one city so close to the edge for as long as it obviously does?

53
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Apparent motion of sun impossible on flat earth
« on: March 27, 2019, 03:00:49 AM »
OK, you explain how, on your flat earth, the sun:
Simple: NASA made the Sun join the RE conspiracy.
Are you saying that NASA modified my own camera so it could fake photos like these of the setting sun at Karumba, Queensland?
 Sunset Karumba on Aug 8, at 18:25:02, 300 mm lens Sunset Karumba on Aug 8, at 18:25:25, 300 mm lens

That's real sneaky of NASA !

No, he means NASA pays the sun to pretend to be setting below a curve instead of fading off into the distance!

54
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: SMOKING GUN
« on: March 24, 2019, 11:09:14 PM »

Read through the entire thread and couldn't even place what the OP was going on about. Because as soon as he is asked to clarify his question, he immediately runs of on a gish-gallop-copy-pasta adventure.

Even a simple question as to who Dr Robert Sungenis is resulted in almost 40 paragraphs with as many names none of which was Dr Robert Sungenis!

For a smoking gun, that sure is a heck of a lot of smoke.

55
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Leak information
« on: March 16, 2019, 03:01:40 AM »
Simple. There is a system and all we are part of a simulation. So that, some agencies and governments are working for benefit of the simulation program. Inother say, hiding the truth is their main task. Otherwise they die.

Historically, many people has sacrificed their lives for the better of humity. Do you know anyone who has sacrificed themselves over this program that you are talking about?

I could probably mention 2. Intikam and Brotherhood of the Dome.

56
##### Flat Earth General / Re: When did the flat earth conspiracy start? and why?
« on: March 16, 2019, 02:59:13 AM »
I did a bit of research and found that Eratosthenes first estimated that the earth was a globe in 240 BC.  This was the first time I found that someone actually tried to calculate the size of the round earth using a scientific approach.  Basically, he found that when the sun was directly overhead in 1 town, it lit the bottom of a well.  However in another time some distance away, the bottom of the well was not lit, the sun was at an angle.  Using trigonometry and knowing the distance between the 2 towns, he calculated the circumference of the earth.   he was about 5% off, not bad for the time.
There was some others that believed in a round earth, including Pythagoras and Aristotle, several hundred years before this, but there estimates on the size were based more on rough guesses then scientific approaches.
My question, how far back does the belief in a flat earth go.  When did people start trying to hide the truth that the earth was flat?   Not only that, but what was the original motivation for people to 'prove' the earth was round and hide the 'fact' that the earth is flat?
I ask this because I am curious if this whole flat earth movement is a recent thing or if its been around a long time.
Before anyone goes down the road of supposedly sizing up the Earth they need to actually put their mind into gear and figure out how this Eratosthenes managed to do what he did when he supposedly noticed this well, lit up and finding that it didn't correspond to another place 500 miles away.
I mean, did he phone his mate up?
Did his mate have telepathy?
Did he walk to the other place with his yardstick and wheel?

Our life is based on little fictional storytelling of history that is potentially so far off the beaten track as to be rendered nothing more than simply readable fictional stories.

"I can see the bottom of the well lit up, send a carrier pigeon to let my best mate know, so he can say his well wasn't lit up like mine."

What a load of effing nonsense.
Yeah..and I used the carrier pigeon as just another joke in the series of jokes that this stuff is.

People today find it hard to read and write but in those days they had libraries and what not. Not to mention super scientists and books and stationary etc to sort out what we can't fathom even today.

People need to wake up with all these supposed historical facts.

Let me tell you something.
If Eratosthenes and co could do what they did in those times, then the technology we have today would not have just came about within just 100 years.

It's almost like we took a time out and then restarted.

When stories need to be spun into fact from a fiction to suit a narrative then there's your history which people will follow and the real steadfast followers of the whole written stories becomes the major memory experts and can now reel those stories off mostly by heart.
Are they experts in history? .....No.
They are experts at memorising the written stories of whoever decided to write them at whatever times, which could have been many many many hundreds of years later than what was told.

We live in a world of storytelling bullcrap that saturates the actually storytelling facts, to then become indistinguishable from those facts.

To think we are born and will die with our heads crammed with nothing more than historical fiction and little known facts.
What a sad state of affairs for living in.

It's funny how people like you ask others to open their eyes and observe for themselves. But when such observation is made and counters or disproves your position, you immediately ridicule it.

People can be very observant. And in those days when science (natural philosophy I think they called it) required and was limited to what could be observed with no tools to help, little "anomalies" of that sort were almost always observed.

It would have been an Eureka moment. Or in the words of Jeranism, "Interesting"

57
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
« on: March 10, 2019, 08:32:43 AM »
FECore apparently has some series leaks in their midst.  There are a couple of videos on Youtube discussing Bob Knodel, FECore, and Globebusters.  In these descriptions for these videos the channel has these links.  They’re email chains and Skype histories that show their attempts to find a way to explain why their gyro shows a drift...not related to earths rotation that is.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/543661178858111006/550393458117050395/bobdemise.jpg
https://pastebin.com/tYT0H0XE

On Bob’s channel, Globebuster, Bob had said that they put their FOG in a Helmholtz coil and it showed no drift at all and it “effectively shutdown” the gyro.  From the info in those links it appears the wasn’t completely honest about that.  Additionally, for some reason both of Globebusters channels on Youtube have removed all their content.  I have no idea why.

From what I have read from your link, these guys really believe what they ....preach. They really believe the earth is flat. They have a good idea about scientific processes even though they will outright reject what doesn't confirm their bias, still they have a working knowledge of scientific processes.

How on earth can they still think the earth is flat? Gives more credence to thay ex flat earther interviewed by FightTheFlatEarth who said the flat earth belief is in the heart and not the head. You can use logic and reason against the head but not against the heart.

58
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
« on: March 10, 2019, 08:00:31 AM »
That Laser Gyroscope, costing \$20,000, that got Bob Knodel into so much bother was just a little "portable" one.

But, as Crocodile Dundee might have said:
That's not a Laser Gyroscope,

this is a Laser Gyroscope!

That GINGERino ring laser gyro has sides of 3.6 m and can measure rotation with a precision of 2 parts in 106 and later ones can achieve 1 part in 108.
Have a look at
Quote
High-Accuracy Ring Laser Gyroscopes: Earth Rotation Rate and Relativistic Effects by N Beverini et al
Abstract. The Gross Ring G is a square ring laser gyroscope, built as a monolithic Zerodur structure with 4 m length on all sides. It has demonstrated that a large ring laser provides a sensitivity high enough to measure the rotational rate of the Earth with a high precision of ∆ΩE < 10-8.
Of course that one in Italy is hardly the thing you might take home.

Unfortunately, some flerf will come up and repeat their cult classic statement of "there is absolutely no scientific measurement of earth's rotation by anyone ever".

And Sandy will come up with reams of copy pasta to show that this is not the Sagnac effect or some such.

But like all things accepted by science, there is either physical experimentation, actual observations or at least cross-checkable mathematics to support said theories or/and accepted facts

59
##### Flat Earth General / Re: known phenomenon without understanding
« on: March 08, 2019, 11:33:25 PM »
There are things that RE science can describe but not explain the workings of, at least not non-controversially and completely. We have equations for gravity, but as I understand it, there is only conjecture and experimentation with the actual implementation, gravity waves, particles or , scientists admit they don't know.

Does that mean that FE can claim something like light bends from the north star so that it is seen as equal to latitude even though it is actually somewhere else, because RE says gravity works but don't know how. So when FE says the north star light bends to appear in the correct lattitude place in spite of the physical impossibility, FE can say "we don't know how, but it does" and be just as valid as RE?

Is there a way to tell the difference between gravity being true without explanation and whatever FE needs to add as a fudge factor without explanation?

Well, even if the causes of gravity are not well understood, it works the same observed and calculated way all the time.

Bendy light only works for the pole star in a specific pole star way while working in a completely different way from the sun and moon and even more different from everything else.

If we want to follow your thinking about not knowing how things work not being evidence that they can't, they have to work the same way all the time to be considered. Flat earth explanations are usually for single observations.

60
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flat earth on netflix! EEEEEEEEEE!
« on: March 08, 2019, 02:29:02 PM »
What about the countless other people all over YouTube who do report seeing convexity at such distances?

That's fine. Rowbotham reported sinking as well in some environments, which is why the Bedford Canal and it's narrow passageways was selected.

No one is calling those people liars. Rowbotham calls into question the validity of Aristotile's first proof that the earth is a globe based on the inconsistency of the effect.

It is fairly well established that people can and have seen further than what RET should allow.

But no one has ever seen as far as a flat earth should allow.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14