Radius of the Earth proves spherical

It's just referred to imaginary because it isn't visible, whereas it actually DOES get hotter, near the equator, and it marks the meet between the north and south hemipheres.

Imaginary hemispheres- more RE bullshit.

Alright, if it is then why does it get hotter at the equator(also, if you're a FEer then you should think that the equator is a nickname for the circumference of the ROUND DISC YOU CALL EARTH)? The answer for REers is that the sun hits there more and so it's hotter. YET ANOTHER STRANGE CONCEPT, THE SUN MAKES THINGS HOT.

Alright, if it is then why does it get hotter at the equator(also, if you're a FEer then you should think that the equator is a nickname for the circumference of the ROUND DISC YOU CALL EARTH)? The answer for REers is that the sun hits there more and so it's hotter. YET ANOTHER STRANGE CONCEPT, THE SUN MAKES THINGS HOT.

The Earth is not a "round disc," and no serious FEer would say that. You have bought the pseudo-FE conspiracy hook, line and sinker.

I agree that the Sun makes certain regions hotter at different times. That has nothing to do with your nonsense about imaginary circumference or hemispheres.

Yea, you "got rid of me" all right, silly REers. You treat me like shit because I dare to point out your nonsense, and *I'm* supposed to be the bad guy? No double standards here, nosiree.

Let's subsume your position so far. You believe in an imaginary Equator, imaginary hemispheres, and you think reality is 2D. Anything non-trollish in all of this nonsense?

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

No, I have not been "proven wrong." I am not the one who believes in imaginary entities.

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.

That makes no sense, my good sir. If it's infinite then how can we walk around it?

No, I have not been "proven wrong." I am not the one who believes in imaginary entities.

Quote from: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 07:28:48 PM

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.

On your infinite plane theory, what causes rising air parcels to rotate counter-clockwise over the U.S. and sinking air parcels to rotate clockwise?  Try giving a better answer than that it is just coincidence.

That makes no sense, my good sir. If it's infinite then how can we walk around it?

There is no "around." You don't walk "around" it, you walk "on" it.

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 09, 2007, 08:02:39 PM

No, I have not been "proven wrong." I am not the one who believes in imaginary entities.

Quote from: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 07:28:48 PM

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.

On your infinite plane theory, what causes rising air parcels to rotate counter-clockwise over the U.S. and sinking air parcels to rotate clockwise?  Try giving a better answer than that it is just coincidence.

If you mean the Coriolis Effect, that's an urban legend (as you can see if you check on snopes.com). Otherwise, I have no idea what you are trying to refer to.

Quote from: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 08:17:13 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 09, 2007, 08:02:39 PM

No, I have not been "proven wrong." I am not the one who believes in imaginary entities.

Quote from: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 07:28:48 PM

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.

On your infinite plane theory, what causes rising air parcels to rotate counter-clockwise over the U.S. and sinking air parcels to rotate clockwise?  Try giving a better answer than that it is just coincidence.

If you mean the Coriolis Effect, that's an urban legend (as you can see if you check on snopes.com). Otherwise, I have no idea what you are trying to refer to.

I never said that Coriolis significantly affects the direction of a toilet.  What I'm saying is that the rotation of airmasses is entirely dependent on Coriolis.  Low pressure systems rotate counter-clockwise, and high pressre systems rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere.  Opposite in the Southern Hemisphere. 

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 09, 2007, 09:57:58 PM

Quote from: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 08:17:13 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 09, 2007, 08:02:39 PM

No, I have not been "proven wrong." I am not the one who believes in imaginary entities.

Quote from: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 07:28:48 PM

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.

On your infinite plane theory, what causes rising air parcels to rotate counter-clockwise over the U.S. and sinking air parcels to rotate clockwise?  Try giving a better answer than that it is just coincidence.

If you mean the Coriolis Effect, that's an urban legend (as you can see if you check on snopes.com). Otherwise, I have no idea what you are trying to refer to.

I never said that Coriolis significantly affects the direction of a toilet.  What I'm saying is that the rotation of airmasses is entirely dependent on Coriolis.  Low pressure systems rotate counter-clockwise, and high pressre systems rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere.  Opposite in the Southern Hemisphere. 

Since these hemispheres are wholly imaginary, there must be another reason for it. I am not familiar with weather systems, but someone with more education in the topic would be able to point you to the correct science I'm sure.

Since these hemispheres are wholly imaginary, there must be another reason for it. I am not familiar with weather systems, but someone with more education in the topic would be able to point you to the correct science I'm sure.

 The simplest answer is usually the right one. 

Since these hemispheres are wholly imaginary, there must be another reason for it. I am not familiar with weather systems, but someone with more education in the topic would be able to point you to the correct science I'm sure.

Anyone with a good amount of understanding of weather systems would know that the Earth is round.

I'll explain the nitty gritty of how it works.  For example, in the Northern hemisphere when hot air rises it induces lower pressure at a location.  This causes air from the surrounding area to move in.  As the parcels move, Coriolis deflects them to the right (or the Earth beneath the air moves) and they begin to flow counteclockwise around the low and begin to rise.  Areas of high pressure are falling so they go the opposite direction (clockwise).

The reason Coriolis occurs can be illustrated even on a disk.  A sphere is not neccessary.  Start at any point on the circle and face East.  Go in a straight line and you will find yourself going closer to the edge of the disk (equator or in the most popular FE, the Ice Wall).  In order to keep going East you have to always be correcting yourself to the left/north.  On a sphere the change is much more gradual.  Try it on a globe.  Since the force is so much stronger on a disk, computer weather models and meteorology would be completely ineffective and no meteorologist would ever be the slightest bit close to a correct forecast since all weather forecasts are based on a spherical Earth.   

And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

No.

Your theory is wrong, just like Timecube. However, the Earth is not round, either.

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 10, 2007, 12:11:59 AM

And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

No.

Your theory is wrong, just like Timecube. However, the Earth is not round, either.

So what is it, then?

So what is it, then?

4D, but don't bother trying to understand; you're too dense. I've read through your posts.

First Round Earth whackos, and now this. I guess I shouldn't have expected sanity coming on this board.

It's insane to deny the truth. Why do you deny the 4 dimensions of the earth?

And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

TV news stations forecast for a metropolitan region which covers wide enough of an area to have differing conditions throughout.  I, however, forecast for a 5-mile radius and my forecasts are 90% accurate.  By accurate, I mean within 3 degrees of temperature, 5 knots of wind, and .03 inches of mercury of air pressure.
Either way you look at it, they're very accurate given the amount of data they have to work with.

http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html  This shows how sparse the weater baloon data is that forecasters have to work with.

http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html  This shows how sparse the weater baloon data is that forecasters have to work with.

So each one of those "f" lookin' dealy's is a weather balloon?  Do you always forecast for the exact same 5-mile radius area?  Meteorology seems like very complex business; how often does some method of forecasting change? 

I'm just curious, I doubt I'm going anywhere with this.

Quote from: mightyfletch on March 10, 2007, 07:33:40 AM

http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html  This shows how sparse the weater baloon data is that forecasters have to work with.

So each one of those "f" lookin' dealy's is a weather balloon?  Do you always forecast for the exact same 5-mile radius area?  Meteorology seems like very complex business; how often does some method of forecasting change? 

I'm just curious, I doubt I'm going anywhere with this.

Right. They show the wind direction and speed.  Every so often I forecast for a different military installation in the South central thogh South East U.S.    A satellite was just sent up that is supposed to be able to work kind of like a very big RADAR.  I don't know too much about though.  With every new advance in computers, forecasting becmoes more accurate.  Satellite imagery was one of the best improvements ever made allowing us to watch the progression of systems that before we could only draw on paper using weather baloon data.  It is so complex that computers have to be the main force if we ever hope to have the "Back to the Future II" precision.  These computers all have Coriolis as a parameter.  My forecasts deal in aviation weather.  So I not only ave to tell you that it's going to be cloudy, but tell you that 5/8 of the sky will have clouds at 12000 feet and so forth.

Also, to improve precision we must have more measurements across the U.S.  It's similar to sample rate in a sound file.  The more samples you have, the less you have to extrapolate and the more subtleties you can pick up on.

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 10, 2007, 12:11:59 AM

And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

TV news stations forecast for a metropolitan region which covers wide enough of an area to have differing conditions throughout.  I, however, forecast for a 5-mile radius and my forecasts are 90% accurate.  By accurate, I mean within 3 degrees of temperature, 5 knots of wind, and .03 inches of mercury of air pressure.
Either way you look at it, they're very accurate given the amount of data they have to work with.

http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html  This shows how sparse the weater baloon data is that forecasters have to work with.

If you're 90% accurate, how come YOU're not on the telly? You can do better than professional forecasters with meteorology diplomas? Give me a break.

Quote from: mightyfletch on March 10, 2007, 07:33:40 AM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 10, 2007, 12:11:59 AM

And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

TV news stations forecast for a metropolitan region which covers wide enough of an area to have differing conditions throughout.  I, however, forecast for a 5-mile radius and my forecasts are 90% accurate.  By accurate, I mean within 3 degrees of temperature, 5 knots of wind, and .03 inches of mercury of air pressure.
Either way you look at it, they're very accurate given the amount of data they have to work with.

http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html  This shows how sparse the weater baloon data is that forecasters have to work with.

If you're 90% accurate, how come YOU're not on the telly? You can do better than professional forecasters with meteorology diplomas? Give me a break.

I am a professional Air Force Weather Forecaster with a Degree in Meteorology.  Television forecasters don't deviate from the weather models which is why my forecasts are better than theirs.   My forecasts are tailored to aviation which has higher tolerances than civilian forecasts.  Television forecasters are more focused on radio broadcasting than meteorology.  Even the most with Meteorology degrees only learn the physics behind meteorology and don't actually learn how to forecast the weather.

I am not angry... just pointing out yet another RE fantasy. Disagreeing with your nonsense does not make me angry.

I am not angry... just pointing out yet another RE fantasy. Disagreeing with your nonsense does not make me angry.

yeah...rather an avant garde ass hole.

yeah...rather an avant garde ass hole.

Do you even know what avant garde is?

Frankly, I find this FE thing more than a little disturbing, but I'll respect that you have an alternative opinion. However...

Who said the Earth was a circle?

If that is an FE belief, then where does this http://i11.tinypic.com/2w2mzr5.png come from?
It's used for explanatory purposes by one of your own, Tom Bishop.

Let's subsume your position so far. You believe in an imaginary Equator, imaginary hemispheres, and you think reality is 2D. Anything non-trollish in all of this nonsense?

Uhh...Yeah, another bit of confusion. As Eviloothpaste said, it's imaginary as in "not visible;" it's simply used as a guideline on sections of Earth. Also, where do you come up with this "2D reality" idea? Reality is clearly believed to be 3D. Otherwise, why would 3D graphics be designed with the goal of trying to produce more real and lifelike imagery?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.

Again, refer to the link above. Also, can you explain how people have circumnavigated Earth by your theory?

And why are you so incessantly rude? It's really unnecessary.   

Quote

Therefore the Flat Earth is proven impossible.

Nope, sorry. Your math only demonstrates your ignorance and need to revisit middle school.

On another note, how did your interview go with the college girl TOm?