any observations that support flat earth and not round earth?

There are many observations one can make that fit a round earth model but not a flat earth one. Many of them have already been brought up in these forums, and never satisfactorily answered. To save space and repetition here, I will simply provide a link (http://qbsmd.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5BA0601679A003C2!111.entry) containing all of those observations. The purpose of this post is to ask what, if any observations do you claim support a flat earth model, that do not support a round earth model?

Many of them have already been brought up in these forums, and never satisfactorily answered.

Actually, they have. Do a search.

The purpose of this post is to ask what, if any observations do you claim support a flat earth model, that do not support a round earth model?

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Ok Kook, so you posted some questions on FES and want us to do your homework for you?

Let me quote you:

A "kook" will generally not do experiments, but instead insist that others do them to prove things. Kooks will then reject as biased or inaccurate any experiment that does not produce the results they wanted.

Now let me also not that you posted the same questions all over our forums, and cherry picked the ones which supported your points.

When in fact you seem to be the "kook" refusing to do experiments to verify your points.

Case 1: Your primary example was the sinking ship effect.  We pointed out that this proves the Earth is flat.  If you use a quality telescope, the hull of the ship will be restored.  Please stop being a "kook" and do the experiment yourself.  Furthermore, we explained the mechanics of the perspective effect causing the illusion.

Case 2: You post the lunar eclipse as an example of a round Earth.  This example also proves a flat Earth, for the moon and sun have been observed in the sky at the same time (the selenehelion, widely ignored by round earth believers) which is impossible in round earth theory.  You ignored this point because it did not conform to your model.

Case 3:You point to the Cavendish experiment as proof the Earth is not flat.  Which is patently silly for so many reasons it is difficult to list here.  Among them, the accelerating earth and infinite plane models will still work with gravity.  Next, the Cavendish experiments are deeply flawed in that the most ambitious attempts have always come up with contradictory results when measuring G (which is degrees of magnitude less precisely defined than other constants to begin with).  Further, gravitons have not, and likely will not be proven to exist, so gravity is at best a "god did it" as compared with our more intuitively obvious acceleration theory.

Case 4:  You use Eratosthenes experiment to prove a round earth, when in fact this experiment  requires the assumption of a round earth.  When you correctly assume the Earth is flat, the same experiment demonstrates the true distance to the sun.

Case 5: Foucault's pendulum.  This does not prove a round earth.  This proves a pendulum rotates, exactly matching the rotation of the celestial spheres.  Round earth theory proposes the rotation of the stars are unrelated to the rotation of the pendulum.  Flat Earth theory proposes research toward determining the yet unknown connection with the celestial spheres and rotation on Earth.  Then when Nobel prize winner Maurice Allais demonstrates that the pendulum changes in rotation 13.5 degrees during an eclipse (suggesting the celestial spheres are related to the pendulum), the "kook" chooses to ignore those results.



So please, now that all of your points have proved the Earth is flat, why are you being such a "Kook" and ignoring the evidence? 


To quote you again - "points" for trying to impress your friends though.  I hope they search our forums and discover how insecure your beliefs truly are.

The ship was not my primary example, it was actually added as an afterthought. Since ships with large sails aren't very common, this kind of observation isn't very likely anymore. I'd like to see if the same thing would happen with a hot air balloon. I'll let you know when I manage that.
Right now, I think the strongest point is that the sun rises and sets. Your spotlight doesn't allow for that. I've observed that.
I never mentioned lunar eclipses.
The Cavendish experiment has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. It demonstrates gravitational attraction between two small masses. It is one example of gravity not behaving the way you think it does.
Using the Eratosthenes experiment to calculate the radius of the earth does assume the earth is round, however even without that assumption, it still tells you the angle between "down" at one location and "down" at another location. Doing similar experiments repeatedly could give one the entire shape of the earth.
You mentioned the Foucault Pendulum and claim it's just some "celestial spheres" effect, but ignore gyroscopes that show the same inertial effects
I had never heard of the Allais effect. I'll look into it. What other anomalies are you aware of in a RE model?

It is one example of gravity not behaving the way you think it does.

But it seems to reinforce the false view of gravity you RE'ers have.

Kook.  Thank you for being so patronizing and condescending.  It is really nice to see someone come here with such an open mind, and clearly not intending to ask redundant questions in order to get easy fodder for a blog post.

The ship was not my primary example, it was actually added as an afterthought. Since ships with large sails aren't very common, this kind of observation isn't very likely anymore. I'd like to see if the same thing would happen with a hot air balloon. I'll let you know when I manage that.

So it is not a valid point?  Thanks for belittling it before investigating.

Right now, I think the strongest point is that the sun rises and sets. Your spotlight doesn't allow for that. I've observed that.

Read Earth Not a Globe.  I've observed many sunsets and sunrises.

I never mentioned lunar eclipses.

Wft?  Yes you did, on several different threads.  Here is one: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=96b4d5e558fc3fee41502c08a0270646&topic=21106.0

The Cavendish experiment has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. It demonstrates gravitational attraction between two small masses. It is one example of gravity not behaving the way you think it does.

So why did you post it if it has nothing to do witht the shape of the Earth??  And acceleration behaves quite the way I think it does, thanks. 

Using the Eratosthenes experiment to calculate the radius of the earth does assume the earth is round, however even without that assumption, it still tells you the angle between "down" at one location and "down" at another location. Doing similar experiments repeatedly could give one the entire shape of the earth.

Have you done anything like this, or are you being a "kook"?

You mentioned the Foucault Pendulum and claim it's just some "celestial spheres" effect, but ignore gyroscopes that show the same inertial effects

Presumably the weight of the gyroscope is also affected by the the rotating celestial systems overhead.

Quote from: qbsmd on May 28, 2008, 08:05:48 AM

It is one example of gravity not behaving the way you think it does.

But it seems to reinforce the false view of gravity you RE'ers have.

Yes, it does reinforce the RE theory of gravity. That is the point.

Quote

Many of them have already been brought up in these forums, and never satisfactorily answered.

Actually, they have. Do a search.

Quote

The purpose of this post is to ask what, if any observations do you claim support a flat earth model, that do not support a round earth model?

Read Earth Not a Globe.

This site has enough forums on it that even with a search, it's hard to find things. The posts I've looked at so far haven't had any impressive responses, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. It would be better if people who notice a repeat post immediately inserted a link to the previous post, and then had moderators remove the repeat. I wish you had provided a link to Earth not a Globe; I just assumed you were trying to get me to buy something. For anyone else reading this, it can be accessed at
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm and does have a list of flat earth supporting experiments, as I had requested in my first post. I'll start reading it.

Quote

You mentioned the Foucault Pendulum and claim it's just some "celestial spheres" effect, but ignore gyroscopes that show the same inertial effects

Presumably the weight of the gyroscope is also affected by the the rotating celestial systems overhead.

If gyroscopes weren't balanced, they wouldn't be useful; the intention is for them to maintain their pointing direction regardless of the motion of whatever ship or aircraft they are inside, and if they were imbalanced, the weight of the imbalance would throw them off.

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 28, 2008, 08:07:22 AM

Quote from: qbsmd on May 28, 2008, 08:05:48 AM

It is one example of gravity not behaving the way you think it does.

But it seems to reinforce the false view of gravity you RE'ers have.

Yes, it does reinforce the RE theory of gravity. That is the point.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said 'false'.

If gyroscopes weren't balanced, they wouldn't be useful; the intention is for them to maintain their pointing direction regardless of the motion of whatever ship or aircraft they are inside, and if they were imbalanced, the weight of the imbalance would throw them off.

They are subject to drift.  I have to readjust mine normally every 15 minutes.

THe best way to proove the earth is flat is by simply looking out one's window, one can clearly see it is flat.

THe best way to proove the earth is flat is by simply looking out one's window, one can clearly see it is flat.

The only flat earth I see out of my window is the result of a bulldozer and paving equipment.

Quote from: Doctor Leina on May 28, 2008, 08:16:59 PM

THe best way to proove the earth is flat is by simply looking out one's window, one can clearly see it is flat.

The only flat earth I see out of my window is the result of a bulldozer and paving equipment.

SO it dosn't look flat to you. Better go to the doctor and get those eyes fixed.

Quote from: markjo on May 29, 2008, 05:14:17 AM

Quote from: Doctor Leina on May 28, 2008, 08:16:59 PM

THe best way to proove the earth is flat is by simply looking out one's window, one can clearly see it is flat.

The only flat earth I see out of my window is the result of a bulldozer and paving equipment.

SO it dosn't look flat to you. Better go to the doctor and get those eyes fixed.

I live in a valley.  Hills all around me.  How does that prove that the earth is flat?

This is the sort of thing that irritates me about this site. Rather than trying to convince people by demonstrating how things really are, they come back with totally pathetic 'arguments' like 'look out your window, that proves it is flat!' I mean jesus, come on...

That kind of mindset is how people thought in the stone age. It looks a certain way, therefore it must be! I'm watching my television, it looks like there are people there behind the glass, so there must be! A plane in the sky at cruising height looks like it's only travelling at a few millimetres a second, therefore it must be!

What a load of complete rubbish. You must agree that those few statements are complete tosh, so why should "look out of the window, the Earth looks flat, so it must be flat!" be treated any differently?

Have you never heard of an 'optical illusion'? This is something that looks a certain way, but actually isn't. If the Earth's surface only has to change angle by 360 degrees over about 25 THOUSAND MILES, and just so you don't have to do the math, that means it's only changing angle on average by one degree every SEVENTY MILES, then it's going to LOOK flat isn't it? Even from the top of the CN Tower, they say on a clear day, clear day this is, you can see about a hundred miles. That's just over 1 degree of angle change. You wouldn't see it. The Earth would look flat. This I agree on.

 But, and this is the distinction that none of you FE advocates seem to grasp, is that that doesn't prove anything. Just because something looks a certain way, doesn't make it so. Nothing you've said does, not convincingly. Prove me wrong, please do.

Quote from: Shoka on May 31, 2008, 06:22:02 PM

This is the sort of thing that irritates me about this site. Rather than trying to convince people by demonstrating how things really are, they come back with totally pathetic 'arguments' like 'look out your window, that proves it is flat!' I mean jesus, come on...

That kind of mindset is how people thought in the stone age. It looks a certain way, therefore it must be! I'm watching my television, it looks like there are people there behind the glass, so there must be! A plane in the sky at cruising height looks like it's only travelling at a few millimetres a second, therefore it must be!

What a load of complete rubbish. You must agree that those few statements are complete tosh, so why should "look out of the window, the Earth looks flat, so it must be flat!" be treated any differently?

Have you never heard of an 'optical illusion'? This is something that looks a certain way, but actually isn't. If the Earth's surface only has to change angle by 360 degrees over about 25 THOUSAND MILES, and just so you don't have to do the math, that means it's only changing angle on average by one degree every SEVENTY MILES, then it's going to LOOK flat isn't it? Even from the top of the CN Tower, they say on a clear day, clear day this is, you can see about a hundred miles. That's just over 1 degree of angle change. You wouldn't see it. The Earth would look flat. This I agree on.

 But, and this is the distinction that none of you FE advocates seem to grasp, is that that doesn't prove anything. Just because something looks a certain way, doesn't make it so. Nothing you've said does, not convincingly. Prove me wrong, please do.

another victory for RE.

yeah, and if these people were moderatley smart people. That is all that would be needed to make them normal.

To all fe'rs, why do you choose to be retarted?

I got an avatar and a lil personal message, woo!

EarthIsFlatAndXenuEx...I like your quote from ski in your sig

Quote from: EarthIsFlatAndXenuExisted on May 31, 2008, 06:30:07 PM

Quote from: Shoka on May 31, 2008, 06:22:02 PM

This is the sort of thing that irritates me about this site. Rather than trying to convince people by demonstrating how things really are, they come back with totally pathetic 'arguments' like 'look out your window, that proves it is flat!' I mean jesus, come on...

That kind of mindset is how people thought in the stone age. It looks a certain way, therefore it must be! I'm watching my television, it looks like there are people there behind the glass, so there must be! A plane in the sky at cruising height looks like it's only travelling at a few millimetres a second, therefore it must be!

What a load of complete rubbish. You must agree that those few statements are complete tosh, so why should "look out of the window, the Earth looks flat, so it must be flat!" be treated any differently?

Have you never heard of an 'optical illusion'? This is something that looks a certain way, but actually isn't. If the Earth's surface only has to change angle by 360 degrees over about 25 THOUSAND MILES, and just so you don't have to do the math, that means it's only changing angle on average by one degree every SEVENTY MILES, then it's going to LOOK flat isn't it? Even from the top of the CN Tower, they say on a clear day, clear day this is, you can see about a hundred miles. That's just over 1 degree of angle change. You wouldn't see it. The Earth would look flat. This I agree on.

 But, and this is the distinction that none of you FE advocates seem to grasp, is that that doesn't prove anything. Just because something looks a certain way, doesn't make it so. Nothing you've said does, not convincingly. Prove me wrong, please do.

another victory for RE.

yeah, and if these people were normal, smare people. That is all that would be needed to make them normal.

To all fe'rs, why do you choose to be retarted?

I got an avatar and a lil personal message, woo!

EarthIsFlatAndXenuEx...I like your quote from ski in your sig

thanks, just figured id keep it before the post got deleted and then go into threads where people say refer to the FAQ.

Quote from: qbsmd on May 28, 2008, 08:07:13 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 28, 2008, 08:07:22 AM

Quote from: qbsmd on May 28, 2008, 08:05:48 AM

It is one example of gravity not behaving the way you think it does.

But it seems to reinforce the false view of gravity you RE'ers have.

Yes, it does reinforce the RE theory of gravity. That is the point.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said 'false'.

Quote

If gyroscopes weren't balanced, they wouldn't be useful; the intention is for them to maintain their pointing direction regardless of the motion of whatever ship or aircraft they are inside, and if they were imbalanced, the weight of the imbalance would throw them off.

They are subject to drift.  I have to readjust mine normally every 15 minutes.

I saw the word false. It looks like you are asserting that you are right while admitting that I have provided evidence that you are not. That confuses me.
What kind of gyroscope do you use (and how expensive is it)? Do you use it in a boat or plane? Does it drift while stationary or just while moving? And how far does it drift before you correct it after 15min?

Quote from: Shoka on May 31, 2008, 06:22:02 PM

This is the sort of thing that irritates me about this site. Rather than trying to convince people by demonstrating how things really are, they come back with totally pathetic 'arguments' like 'look out your window, that proves it is flat!' I mean jesus, come on...

That kind of mindset is how people thought in the stone age. It looks a certain way, therefore it must be! I'm watching my television, it looks like there are people there behind the glass, so there must be! A plane in the sky at cruising height looks like it's only travelling at a few millimetres a second, therefore it must be!

What a load of complete rubbish. You must agree that those few statements are complete tosh, so why should "look out of the window, the Earth looks flat, so it must be flat!" be treated any differently?

Have you never heard of an 'optical illusion'? This is something that looks a certain way, but actually isn't. If the Earth's surface only has to change angle by 360 degrees over about 25 THOUSAND MILES, and just so you don't have to do the math, that means it's only changing angle on average by one degree every SEVENTY MILES, then it's going to LOOK flat isn't it? Even from the top of the CN Tower, they say on a clear day, clear day this is, you can see about a hundred miles. That's just over 1 degree of angle change. You wouldn't see it. The Earth would look flat. This I agree on.

 But, and this is the distinction that none of you FE advocates seem to grasp, is that that doesn't prove anything. Just because something looks a certain way, doesn't make it so. Nothing you've said does, not convincingly. Prove me wrong, please do.

another victory for RE.

That would require him being correct.

 But, and this is the distinction that none of you FE advocates seem to grasp, is that that doesn't prove anything. Just because something looks a certain way, doesn't make it so. Nothing you've said does, not convincingly. Prove me wrong, please do.

If you want proof, you're in the wrong place.  This is not a mathematics forum.  Nothing anybody says here proves anything.

If you want evidence, it's posted all over the site.  Another really good place to look would be Earth Not a Globe.  It's the roots of the theory and if you're going to debate against something you should know what you're debating against.  A lot of what's supposedly "unexplainable" in FET is explained there.

I saw the word false. It looks like you are asserting that you are right while admitting that I have provided evidence that you are not. That confuses me.

I am asserting that I am right, and your view of gravity is false. 

What kind of gyroscope do you use (and how expensive is it)?

It costs a lot.  Aircraft instrumentation is not cheap.

Do you use it in a boat or plane?

Aircraft.

Does it drift while stationary or just while moving?

As long as it is rotating, it is drifting.

And how far does it drift before you correct it after 15min?

About 5 degrees if I remember correctly.

Quote

And how far does it drift before you correct it after 15min?

About 5 degrees if I remember correctly.

The next time you get a chance, would you mind measuring it (while the plane isn't moving)? If it's 15deg/hr (3.75deg/15min) I might die from laughing.

Why would it drift 15 degrees while stationary?

He's hoping it's 15 deg/hr so he can say -- "360 a day?!!! Proof the earth is round." I suspect he really doesn't understand gyroscopes.

Ha!  Good call.

Arrogant sob thinks he knows gyroscopes so much better than we do.

They are subject to drift.  I have to readjust mine normally every 15 minutes.

You need a new INS.  Or an upgrade.

Or are you talking your ADI?  If thats the case you do need a new one.

You need a new INS.  Or an upgrade.

Your INS does not drift?  What does it use to update?  Compass?

Is this drift always the same? Is it possible to have some kind of mechanism to fix it's allignment?
Adjusting it with a compass does not seem to make much sense as this would defeat the point in using a Gyroscope in the first place. Especially in a steel ship.

JackHemming(aka Eric) has invented a very nifty nav system.  You guys really should check into it as it appears to be a breakthrough.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21004.msg405790#msg405790

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on June 04, 2008, 10:22:16 PM

You need a new INS.  Or an upgrade.

Your INS does not drift?  What does it use to update?  Compass?

Our limitation for the INS is around 5 miles/hour before it needs to be replaced.  Thats why we have 2.  So that you can compare the 2 off the GPS or a ground station Nav aid, and see which one is different.  And then punch in a manual update either from the other INS or from the GPS.  You can also link it to the GPS so it gets automated updates from it every so often. 98% of the time, our INS might drift 5-10 miles after an 8 to 9 hour flight without the auto updates. 

Is this drift always the same?

No.  It is based on signal errors whose magnitudes are random at best.

Is it possible to have some kind of mechanism to fix it's allignment?

An INS must be slaved to another system such as GPS or a compass or it will quickly become useless.

Adjusting it with a compass does not seem to make much sense as this would defeat the point in using a Gyroscope in the first place.

Well, we are talking about an INS, first off.  Second, gyroscopes suffer from precession, so they must also be slaved to another system for corrections.