541

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why the north pole at the centre?

« on: December 14, 2012, 07:46:39 AM »

Compasses align north to south, or if you like south to north.

A compass alone does not indicate that the north pole is the center of the earth disc any more than it indicates that the south pole is the center of the earth disc.

542

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why the north pole at the centre?

« on: December 14, 2012, 07:18:01 AM »

Do you mind if we go back to the original question.

543

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why the north pole at the centre?

« on: December 14, 2012, 06:31:28 AM »

You are such a nitpicker.  That does not mean that north is any less accurate on a Flat Earth than a Round Earth.  The compass points north anywhere on Earth, even if north is moving.

Remind me again why your latitude & longitude are important for navigation

According to you, the magnetic pole is shifting anyway, so latitude & longitude don't mean much if you have a compass.

Exactly - they are next to useless if you are defining North as wherever your compass happens to be pointing this year.

But for anyone who actually navigates, or for astronomers like me, Latitude & Longitude are extremely useful. 

Funnily enough, they are defined by two points where the axis of rotation of the planet intersects the surface.  By a staggering co-incidence, one of these points is directly beneath the North Celestial Pole, and the other is directly beneath the South Celestial Pole - exactly what you would expect to observe if you were on the surface of a big globe, but nothing like you would expect to see if you were on a flat disk.

Longitude and latitude are Earth based, so how would that help an astronomer like yourself, other than just knowing where you are?

I'd assume latitude is very important for an astronomer as knowing it will tell you which stars/planets you should be able to observe and where.

544

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why the north pole at the centre?

« on: December 14, 2012, 06:29:44 AM »

Is it evidence of a globe?

Is what evidence of a globe?

545

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why the north pole at the centre?

« on: December 14, 2012, 06:23:42 AM »

A compass points north from anywhere on earth. It points to the center of a circle.

A compass also points to the south from anywhere on the earth.

The south is the rim, north is the center of a big circle.

Seriously? Your evidence is "because I said so".

No, the evidence is for you to get a compass and see if it points to the same point anywhere on the Earth.

Why, I don't question how a magnetic compass works. Depending on how yours is coloured the red bit points to magnetic north and the black bit points to magnetic south.

However just stating "The south is the rim, north is the center of a big circle." is hardly evidence.

546

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why the north pole at the centre?

« on: December 14, 2012, 05:57:49 AM »

A compass points north from anywhere on earth. It points to the center of a circle.

A compass also points to the south from anywhere on the earth.

The south is the rim, north is the center of a big circle.

Seriously? Your evidence is "because I said so".

547

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why the north pole at the centre?

« on: December 14, 2012, 05:38:25 AM »

A compass points north from anywhere on earth. It points to the center of a circle.

A compass also points to the south from anywhere on the earth.

548

Flat Earth Q&A / Why the north pole at the centre?

« on: December 14, 2012, 05:23:32 AM »

Simple question really but I haven't seen it answered properly in earlier posts.

What observations, supporting evidence is there that the north pole is the center point of the flat earth?

I found a few posts like the ones below but the answer seems to boil down to "it's convenient as more people (maybe more accurate to say most flat earthers) live in the northern hemisphere"

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,16284.msg269841.html#msg269841

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,18608.msg338191.html#msg338191

549

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise and sunset is in the wrong place

« on: November 23, 2012, 03:37:30 AM »

I was going to go on and show where FET predicts the sun will be on June 20th for different locations, Havana as it's pretty close to the tropic and Cape Town for the southern hemisphere.

I didn't want to do the math and draw pictures though if the response I get is "no that's not what the FE model predicts, number x is wrong"

I'm happy to be corrected about it, it's your model not mine. I'm just doing the best I can with the limited details on the website.

550

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise and sunset is in the wrong place

« on: November 22, 2012, 03:44:34 PM »

Ok, I'll be basing this on the model I've seen quoted most often where the sun rotates around the north pole and is 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

I'll go with Berlin, it's at approx 52.5^o north. It's 2590 miles south of the north pole.
At the summer solstice sunrise is at 03:43 and sunset is at 20:33, that means that a viewer in Berlin can observe the sun for 16 hours and 50 minutes of it's 24 hour orbit around the north pole, put another way it is visible  for 252^o of it's 360^o orbit.

I forgot to label the circle as the suns path.

If we just concentrate on sun rise for now we can draw 2 triangles as follows


We know the hypotenuse and the internal angles for the top triangle so we know how long the other sides are. As we now know the length of 2 of the 3 sides of the larger triangle we can work out the internal angles etc.

So in FET the sun is 35^o from north and 25^o from the horizon when it can be seen rising above the horizon. I tried to draw this but it didn't come out very well.



Now if you're actually at 52.5^o north then the sun rises 47.72⁰ and sets at 312.28⁰ which is pretty close by FE standards requiring only a 12^o shift horizontally and a 25^o vertically. This leads me to think that who ever came up with this model lived just a few degrees further south.

551

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise and sunset is in the wrong place

« on: November 21, 2012, 03:26:54 PM »

Who said that the sun should rise in NE at 52 degrees north?  No one is answering you because you did not provide any sources to this claim and we don't know what you are talking about.

But I thought that's how things work here!

Before I write out the math and maybe even draw a picture can you confirm the distance from the north pole to the tropic of cancer, I've had to use the RET distances so have been using a distance of 4595 miles.

552

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist

« on: November 21, 2012, 02:44:57 PM »

"What is this "fuel air bomb" that you keep talking about? I've never heard of such a thing.

15 kiloton is a pretty small atomic bomb. I believe the first one tested was larger than that. Can you show me pictures where the road is "clean as a whistle" that were taken right after the bomb went off? Also, do you know that one of emergency responders first priorities is to clear the roads so that emergency crews can get through and help people, lest they be cut off and die when they could have been helped? So should you find any pictures, make sure they were taken before the emergency responders got there."


I think he means this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon not sure how one or even a very many of these explain hiroshima better than a nuclear bomb

553

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise and sunset is in the wrong place

« on: November 21, 2012, 02:03:31 PM »

Right I'm going to have to debunk myself then am I?

Here's a link to where the sun rises and sets for London

http://www.suncalc.net/#/51.5073,-0.1277,7/2012.06.20/21:45

the sun does rise in the north east and set in the north west, not exactly where FE predicts but not too far off.

However here's a link to the mirror image (basically) of it seen from South America in winter

http://www.suncalc.net/#/-51.6248,-69.2358,5/2012.12.20/21:45

if you lived in the southern hemisphere and looked at that you'd swear the sun was going round the south pole.

The FE model is biased in favour of the Northern Hemisphere, if you're a flat earther in the southern hemisphere then it looks like the south pole is the centre.

554

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist

« on: November 20, 2012, 03:36:14 PM »

How many people buy into this and what are your reasons for buying into it?

There appears to be 3 types of people on here. Flat Earth believers, spinning Round Earth believers and people like myself which go with a stationary round Earth, so what exactly do you think keeps the Sun burning.

I have my own theory, which could be absolute nonesense but equally it could be closer to the truth, yet I'll wait until I see what others think that the Sun does and how it keeps burning and what fuel is making it burn.

But back to the OP theme - is the sun a nuclear reactor ?

Well, if you lived in Japan and Germany, the principle would be powering your computer.

Nuclear reactors are a copy of how the sun works. A lot of the heat at the earths core is caused by the same principle. Keep studying at school.

You might want to look up the difference between nuclear fission and fusion.

Current nuclear reactors use controlled fission, the suns fusion is essentially the product of immense gravitational forces creating an environment high pressured enough to fuse atoms together. I think they're trying to build a prototype fusion reactor in France though.

555

Flat Earth General / Re: What evidence is needed?

« on: November 20, 2012, 02:52:43 PM »

Simple. Prove that all those "scientists" that talk about having evidence for a RE are unbiased and are not influenced by the conspirators in governmental organizations. Prove that the fish-eye lenses are inadequate to discredit the videos. Prove that the light  doesn't bend in such a way to provide the illusion of a round earth. Show us that the Ice wall doesn't work the way that it does, and that the guards patrolling it aren't there in reality. In short, disprove the FE. Of course, you can't do any of that.

You can take this and turn it round.
Prove there is a global (for lack of a better word) conspiracy
Prove that light does bend by the orders of magnitude etc required
Prove the ice wall exists at all
Prove that gravity doesn't exist
Prove bigfoot does/doesn't exist (depending on your view)

It's not worth taking that road, you must be able to come up with something tangible, short of going into space.

1: The enlightening banned book, "The world trade center's gruesome secret", by Rufus Mondark, has plenty to say regarding that.
2: That has been shown in previous threads by multiple people. Look it up.
3: Antarctica.
4: Once again, look at some other threads.
5:I don't know whether Bigfoot exists. I suppose he might. 

1: Not sure that proves there's a conspiracy to cover up the shape of the earth, especially seeing as I can't even find it
2: I've read many threads that have touched on this, eventually it seems half of all threads touch on it , I've not read a single one yet that proves the atmosphere can cause the effects in the magnitude needed by FET.
3: How's that proof there's an icewall?
4: I've not seen gravity disproven on here, I've seen people make up alternatives like the UA because gravity doesn't fit the model but that doesn't constitute proof that it doesn't exist.

In the end though this kind of arguing doesn't get you anywhere and usually ends up with a who get's bored first contest. Unfortunately that's pretty much how internet forums work I guess.

556

Flat Earth General / Re: What evidence is needed?

« on: November 20, 2012, 09:02:49 AM »

Simple. Prove that all those "scientists" that talk about having evidence for a RE are unbiased and are not influenced by the conspirators in governmental organizations. Prove that the fish-eye lenses are inadequate to discredit the videos. Prove that the light  doesn't bend in such a way to provide the illusion of a round earth. Show us that the Ice wall doesn't work the way that it does, and that the guards patrolling it aren't there in reality. In short, disprove the FE. Of course, you can't do any of that.

You can take this and turn it round.
Prove there is a global (for lack of a better word) conspiracy
Prove that light does bend by the orders of magnitude etc required
Prove the ice wall exists at all
Prove that gravity doesn't exist
Prove bigfoot does/doesn't exist (depending on your view)

It's not worth taking that road, you must be able to come up with something tangible, short of going into space.

557

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise and sunset is in the wrong place

« on: November 20, 2012, 07:55:54 AM »

I've had a look through the archives but wasn't able to find this coming up before, I found a couple about the equinox but for the most part they were more concerned with the path the sun takes. If I missed something, probably by searching on the wrong terms then I'm happy to read the previous explanation if someone can direct me to it.

Please note that I haven't said the earth is a sphere, merely that the FET model as it stands doesn't account for where the sun rises and sets.

558

Flat Earth General / Re: What evidence is needed?

« on: November 20, 2012, 03:52:48 AM »

How many REers have been here since the beginning? Not many, I'll bet, because they see that spending time here arguing is a tremendous waste of energy.

If only.  There have actually been quite a few REers who have posted here for hours a day, months on end, in an apparent attempt to undo the damage they perceive us to be doing to society.  Of course none of them has been able to prove that the Earth is round.

That's because the good points brought up are left unanswered. As a matter of fact, there are a few on the front pages of the 3 main boards I'm intently watching.

Just do a forum search for your answers. I've been here for almost seven years and the same topics are debated again and again and again. If a question seems to be unanswered it's only because you haven't searched hard enough.

Maybe there needs to be another sticky on the front page then of "topics we see often but haven't updated the wiki or faq about" then.

It doesn't change the original point of the thread though which is what would change your mind (Flat earthers in general) about the earth being flat.

559

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise and sunset is in the wrong place

« on: November 18, 2012, 02:18:55 PM »

Is there no way in FET to explain how about 200 miles of atmosphere can make the sun appear to set approximately 90^o further south than the theory would say.

560

Flat Earth General / Re: What evidence is needed?

« on: November 18, 2012, 02:14:43 PM »

So since you flat-earthers do not believe pictures, as "all of them are photoshopped", don't  believe videos "because they're all taken with fish-eye lenses", and ignore mathematical/ logical proof, my question to you is; what evidence of a RE will you believe? I will be sure to provide evidence by whatever means you wish.

There are many proofs in Earth Not a Globe, it can be found in the Information Repository from the main forum menu.

I find this very telling, Hoppy didn't answer the original question. In jeopardy style he answered the question "what evidence do you have the earth is flat" rather than the original question.

There is a "theory" that some people believe that the earth is flat, what evidence would it take to change this view?

561

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunrise and sunset is in the wrong place

« on: November 16, 2012, 04:53:42 PM »

I live at roughly 52° north (about 2660 miles south of the north pole), and at the summer solstice the sun rises at approximately 4.43am and sets in the evening at 9.33pm. That’s nearly 17 hours of daylight.

Now in FET with the sun essentially orbiting around the north pole that means that the sun is visible for 245° of its 360° but more importantly it means that the sun should rise in the north east and set in the north west.

I can go into the maths and show where FET says the sun should appear and disappear but I suspect it’s pointless as I’m sure the magical refractive properties of the atmosphere will explain why the sun appears to be in the wrong place.

562

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Solstices

« on: November 15, 2012, 02:32:09 PM »

I hope i didn't raise more questions than i answered.

Not at all, the numbers you show are pretty much the same as mine except in km.

The only question I have so far is why a flat earther hasn't answered this simple question yet.

563

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Solstices

« on: November 14, 2012, 09:18:00 AM »

While they don't exist in the view of most people they do exist in the FE model of how the earth works.

My guess based on the position of the tropics is that the sun would fluctuate in diameter between 9240 miles at it's closest to the north pole and 15760 miles at the suns furthest point south.

But I'm happy accept different figures based on FET.

564

Flat Earth Q&A / The Solstices

« on: November 13, 2012, 03:53:26 PM »

Hi,

In FET I was wondering what the diameter is for the suns circular path during the summer and winter solstice?

I looked in the wiki and the faq but couldn't find it just a diagram with the paths drawn on but no measurements.

Cheers