Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - KristaGurl

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 22, 2011, 11:30:18 AM »
Thank you for a mature approach. I admit that I misunderstood your claim about EAT. However, I think I'm still missing something. As far as my understanding goes, the very same would happen on RE:


This is a direct consequence of the concept known as parallax, which is used in RET to determine the distance of stars from the Earth.

Yeah, but in your round earth diagram, you have 2 people looking at the same point.  In the flat earth diagram, you have people looking in different directions and seing the same thing.  I mean, if we both look in different directions,  won't we see different shit?

Look, I used Mickey Earth EAT and Mickey Earth Geometry to show this same phenomenon on a Mickey Earth!  Prove it's not right!  I read a 150 year old book written by a con artist which proves it!


...by the way, the whole backbone of the FE Movement is Sam Row-your-boat-entham's theory about perspective of sight.  Isn't all that dependent on light NOT being "bendy?"

I mean, look.  A flat earth mixed with flat earth math IS a round earth!!!  It's an illusion!!!

32
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 22, 2011, 11:14:39 AM »
Gonna back that up with a nice explanation? I bet not.
How am I supposed to explain that the RE'ers version of EAT is not EAT?
Like I've said many times before, and as I've explained with many anecdotes of varying rationality, RE'ers making up FET and FE'ers making up RET proves nothing about either model.


What's this about different versions of "EAT"? (Please just call it bendy light, then the noobs can follow it). The whole purpose of bendy light is to give FE'ers a theory to explain why the sun, moon and stars appear to sink down over the horizon. In order to do this, any model of bendy light HAS to introduce a curvature to the light beam, which is greater the closer to horizontal the beam becomes. Unless your model of bendy light does this, it doesn't describe why objects sink over the horizon. So if the FE'er version of bendy light doesn't do this, then it doesn't explain sunsets.
It's like having different theories of magnetism - one theory might say the magnet attracts metal to it, another mught say the metal is pushed towards it by some other force. These theories cannot both be correct, however they can both describe the same phenomenon. Bendy light, if you are to claim it exists, requires light to bend, and by an amount proportional to the angle of the beam. The mechanism of bending doesn't matter.
I note you have presented no data, evidence or observations that dispute the disproof of bendy light.

See? Flat Earth Math.  Flat Earth Geometry, Flat Earth EAT.  If you substitute enough REAL logic with alternate logic, you can justify ANYTHING.

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 22, 2011, 11:09:11 AM »
Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!
Oh, no, most of us agree that it's been mentioned. In fact, it's mentioned on a weekly basis, at the very least. It's just that the disproof has never been performed, and the RE'ers refuse to show it (I wonder why).
Lies. The disproof has been performed many thousands of times by both amateur and professional telescope users, who are able to point a telescope to the correct star simply by dialling in the coordinates for declination and right ascension, something which could not be done if the angular distance between stars was variable.
I suppose you're going to say that there's no evidence that telescope users do this, or that the telescope points to a different star and the astronomers don't realise. After all, I can't think of any other possible defence you could use.
Maybe they're using bendy telescopes :P

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 22, 2011, 11:06:17 AM »
Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!
Oh, no, most of us agree that it's been mentioned. In fact, it's mentioned on a weekly basis, at the very least. It's just that the disproof has never been performed, and the RE'ers refuse to show it (I wonder why).

"I wonder why ba babbada babbada!!! I'm so smart!!!"  It might have something to do with how the benefit doesn't outweight the consequence.  Like, maybe the time it takes to explain it isn't worth NOT convincing the 5 people who believe in a flat earth.

35
Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.
« on: November 22, 2011, 10:27:11 AM »
Which part of that is "flat earth math"? None of these statements were derived mathematically.

I'm pretty sure you used the term "flat earth math" to explain why the flat earth map is distorted and stupid.
Clearly not.  And it took all of five seconds to find out via the search feature.  There is no difference between "math" and "flat earth math".  You are just talking nonsense, again.

Does the search feature display posts that were altered?

36
Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.
« on: November 21, 2011, 01:55:16 PM »
Which part of that is "flat earth math"? None of these statements were derived mathematically.

I'm pretty sure you used the term "flat earth math" to explain why the flat earth map is distorted and stupid. 

37
Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.
« on: November 20, 2011, 07:42:10 PM »
You suggest the use of non-existent math
Please present a mathematical explanation performed by me that you believe to be incorrect. In other words, back your claims up. It's good practice.

Yeah, I will as soon as you bring us some of this good ole "flat earth math" you've been talking about.  ...and a map.  A map to show how flat earth math describes a circle as NOT A SPHERE!!!

38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 20, 2011, 07:37:33 PM »
God, this is retarded!!!  I'm simply at a point where I just don't believe they think the earth is flat.  Not only am I not convinced that the world is flat, I'm actually convinced they're not being serious!  I just think the scientific debate is mentally stimulating. 

RE'ers, You're not gonna convince them of anything.  In their world, flat means round.  That's basically all they've proven.  That's the only explanation they've proven to me.  They distorted the flat version of a round earth map so that it's a circle, and they justify it with something called Flat Earth Math, which... explains a circle as having the exact same geometry as a sphere.  It's an illusion.  There is no "flat earth math" except in their minds, because apparently "flat" means "round."  It's the same.  The way they explain "flat earth math," they're explaining the behavior of a round earth.

It's like saying, "Dogs are snakes... if you use Snake-Dog grammar where, you switch the definitions of the word 'dog' and 'snake.'"

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Spinning World causing Equal Motion
« on: November 20, 2011, 07:27:42 PM »
I think I can adapt KristaGirl's argument so that it is aimed towards the FEers and their model. If the Earth is a disc with the North Pole at the center and the sun as a "spotlight" above the equator, the area lit up should appear from space like a wedge of a circle. By FEers own standards, this does not work. Why is the range of light along the lines of longitude larger than along the lines of latitude? And if the Sun is at the equator, why does its range increase as the light moves South, but decrease as it move North?

Exactly. 

The more I get into this, the more awesome it becomes.  We're supposed to throw away 2,000 years of the most basic, conventional Earth Science for non-proven things like Flat Earth Math, Bendy Light, Sky Gears, Universal Accelerators and Moon Shrimp?  I wanna have a conversation about this in person with a FE'er.  I don't believe they can say "Sky Gears" and "Moon Shrimp" without laughing.  I certainly can't read it without laughing.

And like, whenever we explain how FET doesn't work, and they come up with something that sounds totally out of their asses like "sky gears," does this not sound like an Alcoholic looking for any old reason to excuse his alcoholism?  I mean, I hear FE'ers say, "All of this has been explained."  Then, when you look back at the explanations, they contain stupid crap like "Sky Gears."  Sky Gears??? What the hell are sky gears???  Just... don't you have a Candy Land game to get back to?  Isn't Spongebob about to come on or something?  Sky Gears... get outa here...

RE'er: The world can't be flat because [insert scientific explanation]
FE'er: Yeah, well... that can be explained by magical Leprechauns in space who fly on giant space-possums!!!, and the government and NASA are in cahoots with them to brainwash you!!!  You can't prove I'm wrong!!!

40
Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.
« on: November 20, 2011, 07:19:03 PM »
Scientifics.
Oh, so now we have entered the realm of using non-existent words as answers to "who?" questions.

What's the difference?  You suggest the use of non-existent math to explain impossible phenomena

41
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
« on: November 20, 2011, 07:07:17 PM »
I started looking at the given lines of latitude in the flat earth map:



Notice how they're all straight

Incorrect.

I believe she was talking about lines of longitude.
Once you are able to recognise a straight line, please feel free to come back and make a point that isn't founded upon false claims.

I was talking about the lines going from the center to the outer perimeter.  Sorry, longitude.  I shall adjust the post now.

42
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
« on: November 20, 2011, 07:05:23 PM »
This is exactly what happens with every FE "theory". It may sound acceptable if you do not look too carefully, but as soon as you dig even a millimeter deep you start to need some curvature to make things work. Every explanation that sort of solves one problem causes even more problems than it solves.

So nobody can even start to refute Krista's argument (except with one word idiocies, like Parsifal) because anything you counter just digs a bigger hole for the FE "theories".

Just like a magic trick

43
Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica
« on: November 20, 2011, 07:04:08 PM »
And what about the scientific bases all over Antarctica?

Try getting them to show you where they are on a flat earth map, you won't have much success.

That's because a small place on the southern pole of a flat earth map would stretch around the outer perimeter of the world.  It would have to.

44
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff
« on: November 20, 2011, 07:00:17 PM »
Another problem about satellites:

See the following image:
http://www.astra-aps.de/worldskies/satellites/footprints/NSS-5-340E-Global.jpg

It is the footprint (area of reception) of NSS-5, located @ 20 degrees West, supposedly above the Equator. The picture uses a flat projection (Mercator?) of an assumed spherical Earth. Due to the projection, the boundary looks like a "squircle" - the same image projected on a sphere would show the boundary as a true circle. Projecting it on the disc map commonly used on this forum, yields a completely nondescript shape.

This particular radio source (satellite? tower?) radiates nearly omnidirectionally, so if from a point on Earth, you have a line of sight to it, then a big-enough dish should allow you to receive the signal. Hence the distinctive perimeter shape (to which all other supposed satellite signals tend to converge - often, a more directional beam, when mapped, will look like it is "cut off" by this shape) - at the perimeter, the radio source can be seen touching the horizon; and crossing the perimeter causes it to drop below the horizon, preventing further reception.

My question is: Why is the shape of the perimeter (the curve at which the radio source appears to touch the horizon) shaped the way it is?

If we assume that the Earth is round, then we can easily explain it as an object in geosynchronous orbit (a satellite) emitting the signal. Any point-like object that emits radiation isotropically will always light up an area on any nearby sphere that will be bounded by a circle. The relative radius of the bounding circle is a function of the radius of the sphere, and the distance between the emitter and the center of the sphere.

However, on a flat Earth, we get no such model. Instead, translating the above image onto the disc map will yield a footprint with a perimeter that is impossible to achieve with a single emitter. (Remember, it is not enough to just lose signal exactly at the perimeter - the cause of the signal loss must be the radio source going below the horizon, for the theory to be consistent with observation.) The idea of multiple emitters may come up, but it is easily disproven by the fact that there are no reports of geographical fluctuations/discontinuities in the received signal strength of this source.
(On top of that, I suspect that not even multiple emitters can yield the above footprint on a flat disk.)

EDIT: Here is another radio source showing the same footprint: http://staging.satbeams.com/footprints?beam=6321
(The map projection is different, but it is the same basic footprint.)

Unlike the other one, this "satellite" broadcasts a continuous DVB-T transmission of Benin's Canal 3 TV channel, so it should be easier to confirm.

I'm not really sure if you're a RE'er or a FE'er... but, the reason for the squircle is that, like how the mercator map forces you to stretch the polar regions, the circle shape it would project has to be stretched at the top and bottom.  When you keep the integrity of the middle of a circle and stretch the top and bottom, you get this squircle shape. 

45
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: China
« on: November 20, 2011, 06:48:14 PM »
I didn't say anything about direction. Early airplanes (even in the first airlines) did not have speedometers. They had to approximate their speed.

First of all, aircraft do not have 'speedometers'.  They have airspeed indicators and sometimes ground speed indicators.  Secondly, the pitot tube (the basis of most airspeed indicators) was invented in the late 18th century and many (if not most) WW1 aircraft (long before any airliner) had airspeed indicators.  Now, unless you actually mean ground speed indicator, then you might have a point, but not a very good one.  The difference in RET and FET distances (especially south of the equator) are just too great to be waved away.

lol "speedometers."  That sounded kinda wrong when I read it.  Thanks for saving me the time of looking that up.

It also seems kind of cock-eyed to compare a couple of voyages on a boat to prove every single modern flight wrong.

I don't really believe the math AND navigation equipment AND the government are all lying to us, and this fringe group of non-scientists with an extremely flimsy, faulty, unproven and highly unlikely theory are the only ones who know the truth.  Hey, I'm not a scientist.  I'm surprised my pre-graduate physics classes are actually helping me maintain a sophisticated argument, but... I'm sorry.  The flat Earth argument is simply that... FLAT!  There are retired Navy pilots and astronauts who are supposedly leaking government information about UFO's and aliens.  Not ONE of them is telling us anything about a flat earth conspiracy.

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Credibility of FET Science
« on: November 20, 2011, 06:38:52 PM »
PJ28 please tell me how there are 2 high tides at one time on opposites sides of the earth. Please include the math and physics. Thank you.

Got any more, Hoppy?

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Credibility of FET Science
« on: November 20, 2011, 06:34:05 PM »
Let me explain it another way. The tides come from the fact that the nearer one is to the moon, the stronger the moon's gravitational pull. So, the pull on the "moon side" is stronger than the pull at the center of the earth, the pull on the opposite side is weaker:


Note that the distance earth-moon on the image is not to scale, to better show the effect.

You might ask: When earth, with water and people and all, is pulled toward the moon - why does it not eventually crash into the moon? Well, it's the same reason why the moon doesn't crash into the earth: Centrifugal forces.

To illustrate this, imagine you are whirling a lasso around above your head, with an armadillo at the end. You have to lean slightly towards the opposite side of the armadillo, otherwise you will fall over:

The earth does the same thing with the moon, except that the armadillo is replaced by the moon, and the lasso by the mutual gravitational attraction. That means, the earth's center does a tiny rotational movement  around the common mass center of earth and moon (red circle in fig. 2).

I'm not sure what the correct english word for such a movement is (in German it's "eiern"). Maybe "wobbling". Let's stick with "wobbling". At the center of the earth, this wobbling centrifugal force counters the gravitational pull from the moon (green and orange arrow at the center of the earth).

Now, look again at fig.2 and consider the forces on the water on both sides:
  • On the moon side, the gravitational pull is stronger, and the wobbling centrifugal force is directed towards the armad... err the moon. Hence the water gets pulled towards the moon.
  • On the oppisite side, the gravitational pull is weaker than at the center of the earth, and the centriwobbling force is stronger, hence the water gets pulled away from the moon.

Hence the two tides.

Oh yeah... and this has been proven over and over to also happen on other planets and stars.  We can prove that other planets revolve around other stars because other stars have this same wobbling effect.  Hence... the Earth is a planet and the sun is a star.

48
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Credibility of FET Science
« on: November 20, 2011, 06:31:00 PM »
Funny, that. I tried pulling on a rubber band around my fingers. it didn't do that. Nothing does that. You can't pull something in one direction and have it stretch the other way. In essence, that model is incoherent with reality.
Since when is a rubber band around your fingers an accurate analog for liquid oceans on a spinning globe?  ???

Around the same time that a flat earth is accurate analog for intelligent thought.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Credibility of FET Science
« on: November 20, 2011, 06:30:17 PM »
Funny, that. I tried pulling on a rubber band around my fingers. it didn't do that. Nothing does that. You can't pull something in one direction and have it stretch the other way. In essence, that model is incoherent with reality.

Yeah, you're finger isn't in space and the world's oceans aren't a solid object pinched between the moon's fingers. 

I don't know what's funnier: this comment, or Zogg's picture of the cowboy swinging the armadillo around in circles.

50
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 18, 2011, 01:59:33 PM »
But you calculate them following some strange paths that, contrary to your belief, do not constitute straight lines.

No, you gave us the straight lines.  You gave us a flat map with straight lines.  On a round earth, they are straight lines.  That's why they prove to be the shortest paths available... because we live on a round planet.

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 18, 2011, 01:57:30 PM »
Perhaps under RET geometry.

Do you ever wonder why RET geometry works in the world we all live in and NOT on a Flat Earth map?

Do you ever wonder why RET geometry works in every other measurement except in measurements of YOUR understanding of the world... but not ours?

52
Flat Earth Q&A / Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
« on: November 18, 2011, 11:51:16 AM »
If you observe the distortion in the southern continets in an FE map, a FE'er explains those distortions by explaining that as you traverse outwards towards the edge, measurements become distorted.  They claim that this phenomenon causes the normal laws of geometry to not apply, and calls for a substitution of measurements they call "flat earth math."

As I started to think about what "flat earth math" would entail, I started to think about ratios in the flat earth map.  I started looking at the given lines of longitude in the flat earth map:



Notice how they're all straight and in equally distributed degree of separation all the way out.  However, when you look at the actual distances between landpoints going outwards, you notice that once you pass (what RE'ers consider) the equator, all of a sudden the ratios begin to get a lot more drastic (points of reference that do line up in geographic coordination don't line up with lines of longitude in a flat earth map).  In fact, if you drew a line between actual 1:1 distances on a flat earth map all the way towards the edge, you would see that the lines of longitude should actually curve backwards until they meet at a central point on the other side of the map.

Below, a very rough example of two lines of theoretic longitude that roughly retain 1:1 integrity:


This tells me that the outside of hypothetical flat earth doesn't actually conclude at a dropoff (or, "end of the world"), rather a point of circumfrencial unity where, one partcle located at the extreme edge of the world would actually wrap around the circumfrence of the Earth.  Meaning, if you stood on the south pole, and I pushed you away from Australia, rather than fall off the face of the earth, you would actually find yourself being pushed towards South America on the other side of the world.  This also means that, if you stand on the very outer rim of the earth, you would actually be surrounding the world.

The problem with this map is that every line of longitude would need to be split into two lines.  One wrapping around one way and one wrapping around another way.  Otherwise, there would be a split in the world somewhere to compensate for the distortions.  But, if this were the case, crossing lines of longitude would indicate that land masses would overlap.  This isn't the case.

Another problem with this map is that as the lines of longitude would curve, they would even out with the lines of latitude.  Eventually, on the other side of the earth from the point where the lines of longitude traversed perpendicular the lines of latitude, they now run parallel.  In order for them to stay perpendicular, lines of latitude would have the opposite effect.  They would curl upwards into the north pole to stay perpendicular.  This would result in the same condition of either overlapping land mass (which isn't happening), or a split planet.  This would cause the planet to be cut into 2 circles rather than 1.

There are 3 possibilities when it comes to fixing this error:

1. You split the earth into 2 circles like a figure 8.  This way, the continents retain their known distances and compensates for the integrity of longitude and latitude.  This doesn't work because the gap created by the split would still cause an inconsistency in proven geographic distance.

2. You put the meeting point outside of South America on the other side of the map so that the North pole is at one side, the equator in the middle and the South Pole on the other side.  This doesn't work because, in order to keep it flat in a 3-dimensional sense, you also have to keep it flat in a 2 dimensional sense, causing the earth to be a straight line.  Of course then, in order to keep geographical distance consistent, you also need to keep it flat in a 1 dimensional sense, which would then result in a purely non-existent object.

3.  You give the earth a third dimension.  You take the meeting point outside of South America and pull it downwards so that it's below the North Pole.  As a result, rather than a single point in the north pole and relying on skewed geometry to create circumfrencial unity on the edge, you simply have a mirroring point underneath the north pole.  This would also account for me pushing you away from Australia, and you being pushed towards South America on the other side.  And, it would also account for the multiple places currently at the north pole that are exactly that... one point.

It's important to note that it would be impossible for anything to exist on the edge of the world.  If flat earth math reconciles geographic coordination with the coordinates given on a flat earth map, the outermost rim would have to prove to be smaller than a particle (the rim of the earth carries a geographical measurement of a single point).  So, moving around on the earth would be much like the reflection of a concave mirror.  As you move across the mirror, objects go from wide to small to wide again, much like it does on the flat earth map.  However, when you stick an object INTO the curve of the mirror, things look more evenly distributed.  Of course, once you consider this map being pushed inwards into a concave mirror that was an exact semi-sphere, from the perspective of the mirror, you get the exact image of the earth... a spherical earth... with consistent geographic coordinates.

So, from what this logic tells me... is that in order for the flat earth map to even work if that IS the shape of the earth, it would have to at least APPEAR spherical.  And, it does.  The earth behaves exactly the way I've mentioned above.  There have been explorers who have gone across the south and ended up on the other side.  Even commercial flights... they don't have to go across the southernmost point to prove that you end up on the other side.  From the point I've argued above, you COULD, on this flat earth map, go southward from Sydney to end up at South Africa, and it would end up at the same point.

The problem is, in order for that to work, you have to assume that the earth is in a HIGHLY circumstancial, otherwise proven and unlikey shape, and that (otherwise correct) geometry does not apply in this case alone.  For this reason, the most likely scenario is that the earth is the spherical shape that has been proven and documented for over 2,000 years, and geometry consistent with the natural world proves it and backs up the claim.

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Credibility of FET Science
« on: November 18, 2011, 06:55:50 AM »
I can sympathize with the idea that "we know the truth, but we can't get a scientist to prove it because either a) they're part of the conspiracy, or b) they've been brainwashed."

My problem is... if you don't have the science, just say you don't have the science.  Just tell us you can't prove it.  Just tell us that you're theory is as flimsy as the skin on a soap bubble.  Let US form OUR conslusions based on truth.  Don't come back at an unanswerable question and tell us, "it just is," or "prove it's not," or "you're stupid," or "why can't you just believe shit that a VAST majority of SCIENTISTS disagree with and science PROVES is incorrect," or "science works differently in my imagination than it does in reality..."

Then again, if you don't have the science or the proof or any evidence, why the hell do you believe it in the first place?

This sounds like a whole bunch of nitpicking facts and speculation to support a foregone conclusion.  That is not science!

"We think so because that's how it looks up close."  So, I guess in your world, a forest is a single, big fat tree, right?  And everyone who's ever been outside the forrest is a liar and part of a conspiracy? 

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Credibility of FET Science
« on: November 18, 2011, 06:43:08 AM »
PJ28 please tell me how there are 2 high tides at one time on opposites sides of the earth. Please include the math and physics. Thank you.

Can you please tell me how there being 2 high tides at one time on opposite sides of earth proves Flat Earth Theory?

Anyways, it's quite simple, really.  Every action = equal and opposite reaction.  Moon pulls the tide up, the tide on the realtive "sides" gets pulled down, causing the tide on the relative "bottom" to be pushed up.



If I were a flat-earther, I would explain it like this:  Can you prove there are 2 tides?  Maybe there aren't really 2 tides!  Maybe, since math is different in a flat earth world than it is in reality (not that there's a difference between a flat earth and reality), you measure height different in one side of the world than the other!  Maybe NASA is lying about the tides!  And George Bush and 9-11 and Global Warming and Elvis works at Burger King!!!  YEAH!!!  So, THERE!!!  Pothagorean Theorum!  I think I'm smart, so that makes you stupid!

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica
« on: November 18, 2011, 06:26:16 AM »
They lied for the glory.

Why?  If there no glory in reaching the end of the world and proving conventional science to be flawed?  Why does it make sense to base our belief structure on a 19th century crackpot with a bunch of debunk ideas, and then call all the scientists and explorers who agree that the south pole actually exists as we understand it liars?

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 08:18:18 PM »
(the actual length changes a couple feet each year. I don't know why). And, again, the lengths are difference in FET.

The earth is fatter around than it is over the top+bottom because the earth spins on it's axis.  It's the exact same phenomenon behind Saturn's rings.  Whenever you have debris within' the roche radius, debris spirals into a planet in a perpendicular fashion to it's axis.  If you take a wet ball and and spin it end-over-end in the air, you'll notice the water flings off in a path perpendicular to its rotational axis.  Also, if you spin anything big enough with enough velocity, it will distort.  Especially as big as the world is and as fast as it rotates.  You just proved the earth is round.

Let's get back to this map and how the measurements don't add up and the length of the green line.  I took the map Zogg uploaded and gave it a little Trig.

Of course I can't measure miles on my computer monitor, so I blew the image up to it's actual size in photoshop (my display is 1280x1024, which proves an even 1:1 ratio) and did some measurements.  The red line drawn between Sydney and Cape Town is 9.63".  Now, we can all agree that the North Pole is the center  of the map.  The distance between Cape Town and the North Pole as well as the distance between Sydney and the North Pole is 5.25".  Now that we have a triangle with known measurements of all 3 sides, we can deduce that the angle between the two distances is 133 degrees.  Since the distances are equal and they are the same distance from the center, we can now assume a radius of 5.25".  Since we have 2 lines of radius with a given length, and we know the degree of separation between the two, we can figure out the distance of the arc that joins them.  Thus, we can deduce that the green line roughly measures 12.16".  So, how long is that?  Well, if 9.63" = 6,843 miles, we can determine mileage that would be covered in 12.16" using a ratio of 1 to 710.59.  This Makes the green flight path a whopping 8,640 miles.  So, according to the flat earth map, roudn earth pilots are taking an 8,640-mile journey in the time it takes to travel only 6,843 miles.  BUT... if you measure the radius between the center point and the middle of the green arc, you'll get a wider radius.  This means that the length of the green line is actually GREATER than the values I've provided.

8,640 > 6,843.  Thus, the green line is longer.  What's more, the distance from Los Angeles to Cape Town is actually over 9,000 miles, which should be LONGER than the green line indicated on the map (which is the actual used flight path).  However, the distance between L.A. and Cape Town on the FE map only measures around 8", which is 33% SHORTER than the used flight path between Sydney and Cape Town.

What Zogg is indicating in this map is that it takes a shorter amount of time to complete the used flight path between Sydney and Cape Town than it takes to complete the used flight path between LA and Cairo.  But, according to the map, it should take twice as LONG because the 4.75" line connecting LA and Cairo on the flat earth map should only translate to around 3,375 miles.  The Flat Earth Map just doesn't work.



So, I've explained how the map doesn't work in real world math.  It's not "Round Earth math," it's called geometry.  If the math I've used works to explain the measurements of every single circle in the world, why the hell would it change when it comes to measuring a circular, flat world... unless the given shape of the world is incorrect?  The only way proven theories of geometry apply to Earth like it does to every other thing in existence is if the world is spherical... which... amazingly is EXACTLY how it appears when you look at it.

Now, you'll have to forgive me for not providing the same measurements in FE math... where you use different laws of geometry to measure the world than you do to measure EVERYTHING ELSE.  FE'ers made up flat earth math, so FE'ers are the only ones who know how to do it.  If you can explain the distances provided using "flat earth math (which just... sounds incredibly STUPID even THINKING about the very term)," we would love to see it.  Don't just give us a map that doesn't look anything like the world and say, "we can't prove it, and we can't explain why it's different than every other logical conclusion, but it just is because... well, prove it isn't!"

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Spinning World causing Equal Motion
« on: November 17, 2011, 06:13:43 PM »
One of the very few things that FE'ers generally agree on is that the flat earth does not rotate.

Oh, is that it?  I could see where that would throw a FE'er off...

Let me add this to it:
If you observe light moving around a disk and the observer is on track with the light sorce, the lit area would appear to rotate.  Like, if you're standing on a street and a car drives by, the road appears stationary and the car is moving.  If you're IN the car, the car appears stationary while the street appears to move.  Relativity of motion.  It all depends on where you are.  We have no images of the light moving as the Earth stays stationary, so FE'ers must agree that a time lapse video fo the earth rotating must come from the satellite following the light source, giving off the illusion that the light is stationary while the earth moves.

Now, given this... [see above]

That's all well and good, but the best answer you're going to get is that you (or the global conspiracy) doctored all the photographs.

Well, I am a part of the conspiracy... :P

58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 02:02:36 PM »
Now you are saying that the longest line on the map is the shortest on earth
No, I am saying that you have marked the shortest line on the map as "even longer", without specifying what it is "even longer" than.

Once again you attempt to put words in my mouth. Does this problem stem from your childhood, perhaps? If you'd like to talk about it, I should be able to offer some help.

Is it not obvious that he intended the "longest" line to be compared to the other lines drawn on the map?

59
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 01:59:10 PM »
Alright, here's an equation for the length of the disk (what in RET would be lines of latitude). Note that it only works for negative values (below the equator)

|X|445.277963

Where X= the degree of latitude. I can probably get distances between cities, too, but it'll take a lot longer.

BTW, are there any specific cities you want the distances between?

No no... we don't want you to concoct distances between cities.  We know the distances between cities.  We want you to reconcile those distances with a flat-earth map.

"|X|445.277963" doesn't mean anything in Earth-speak.  You're gonna have to tell us what that means.  And please don't say, "you don't know what that means? No wonder you're all stupid!"  We're not stupid, we're ignorant.  So please... enlighten us.  What is that?

I'm sorry I didn't add labels. I assumed that you could figure out that I was talking about lengths (although I admit that I forgot to state that it's in kilometers). Also, I forgot to add the length of the equator. That's fixed now.

You mean, the diameter?  If the distance between the north and south pole (radius) is 12,800km, why would it not be 12,800km x 2? (diameter = radius x 2, right?)  So, where do all those other numbers come from?

Do you mean to say the diameter is 445.277963km + 40,075.016686km?  So, the diameter is 40,520.294649 km?  Why wouldn't you just say it that way? 

I think I'm just lost.  Does anyone else understand what he's saying?


60
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: China
« on: November 17, 2011, 01:25:35 PM »
Ladies and Gentlement, I present to you the Flat Earth Movement:

The pilots do not have to be members of the conspiracy. They are not controlling this. The plane is lying to them.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5