Round Earth flaws

To reject a common believed model, one must find flaws in it. As I guess from reading this very interresting forum, the one thing that FE'ers have problem with is gravity. According to FE'ers gravity as a force does not exist.

I also understand that the force that pulls us all down to earth is caused by constant acceleration.

My question is: Is gravity the only issue that makes the RE model less likely than the FE model, or are there more flaws or errors in the RE model?

Gravity is a myth, the Earth sucks.

I'm confused that contant acceleration does not apply if you manage to fight your way past the NASA/Gov guards at the fringe and jump off the disk, then you become free of the UA influence and fall into the void?

There are no flaws with the RE model. 

There are plenty of flaws with the Round Earth model. Just read Earth Not a Globe, 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe, and Zetetic Cosmogony. Online versions can be found in my signature link.

There are plenty of errors with the Round Earth model. Just read Earth Not a Globe, 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe, and Zetetic Cosmogony. Links to online versions can be found in my signature link.

100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe is laughable.  "If the earth was round, buildings' walls would not be parallel because of the curvature."
Earth not a globe proves nothing.  Zetetic came about because current science didn't fit the FE model.   

"If the earth was round, buildings walls would not be parallel because of the curvature."

I lol'd.

Quote from: sokarul on August 05, 2008, 06:26:44 AM

"If the earth was round, buildings walls would not be parallel because of the curvature."

I lol'd.

Read the rest for even more laughs. 

Quote from: ghazwozza on August 05, 2008, 09:03:31 AM

Quote from: sokarul on August 05, 2008, 06:26:44 AM

"If the earth was round, buildings walls would not be parallel because of the curvature."

I lol'd.

Read the rest for even more laughs. 

The math in earth not a globe is very amusing as well

There are plenty of flaws with the Round Earth model. Just read Earth Not a Globe, 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe, and Zetetic Cosmogony. Online versions can be found in my signature link.

And when it comes down to it, for every RE flaw there are ten more FE flaws.

100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe is laughable.  "If the earth was round, buildings' walls would not be parallel because of the curvature."
Earth not a globe proves nothing.  Zetetic came about because current science didn't fit the FE model.

"There are a couple faulty arguments in that book therefore they're all faulty"

"Those experiments could be fake"

"That book doesn't count because of the time period it was written in"

You make up the lamest excuses. 

Quote

100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe is laughable.  "If the earth was round, buildings' walls would not be parallel because of the curvature."
Earth not a globe proves nothing.  Zetetic came about because current science didn't fit the FE model.

"There are a couple faulty arguments in that book therefore they're all faulty"

"Those experiments could be fake"

"That book doesn't count because of the time period it was written in"

You make up the lamest excuses. 

The lack of any real scientific method in the book is what makes it faulty

Quote

100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe is laughable.  "If the earth was round, buildings' walls would not be parallel because of the curvature."
Earth not a globe proves nothing.  Zetetic came about because current science didn't fit the FE model.

"There are a couple faulty arguments in that book therefore they're all faulty"

"Those experiments could be fake"

"That book doesn't count because of the time period it was written in"

You make up the lamest excuses. 

Sounds exactly like what an FEr says about RE evidence don't you think?

Irony.

So, I read the "100 proofs" document.  I could not stop laughing at:

"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."

LOL!
 

Obviously the point is that navigators are only able to travel with such accuracy is because a map is better able to represent a flat world than a globe.

So, I read the "100 proofs" document.  I could not stop laughing at:

"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."

LOL!
 

Yup Yup

You chortle about the buildings one, and yes, for structures like houses there is literally no perceptible difference, but certain large bridges around the world have, so their architects claim, been built with pillars wider apart at the top than at the base - on the largest bridges in the world, the difference actually amounts to several inches. However, when the bridges are actually constructed, they are always built parallel. You can consult low-level bridge engineers on this, or go and measure them for yourself.


Anyway, I think the most serious problem with the Copernican model is that a lunar eclipse should not be able to occur during broad daylight, yet many have done. The RE model is elegant, certainly, but not quite elegant enough to explain that particular phenomenon to any degree of satisfaction. It just doesn't fit. It can't.

You chortle about the buildings one, and yes, for structures like houses there is literally no perceptible difference, but certain large bridges around the world have, so their architects claim, been built with pillars wider apart at the top than at the base - on the largest bridges in the world, the difference actually amounts to several inches. However, when the bridges are actually constructed, they are always built parallel. You can consult low-level bridge engineers on this, or go and measure them for yourself.


Anyway, I think the most serious problem with the Copernican model is that a lunar eclipse should not be able to occur during broad daylight, yet many have done. The RE model is elegant, certainly, but not quite elegant enough to explain that particular phenomenon to any degree of satisfaction. It just doesn't fit. It can't.

An eclipse happening while it is light out is very possible in RE and that has been gone over.

An eclipse happening while it is light out is very possible in RE and that has been gone over.

Nope. Sorry. In the RE a Lunar Eclipse cannot occur when the sun and moon are both above the horizon.

An eclipse happening while it is light out is very possible in RE and that has been gone over.

A full lunar eclipse requires the Earth to be positioned precisely between the Moon and the Sun. This cannot occur when both bodies are simultaneously visible in the sky (i.e. when it is broad daylight and the Moon is visible), yet DLEs continue to occur. There's no way around it, it just can't happen under Copernican physics.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 05, 2008, 02:02:08 PM

An eclipse happening while it is light out is very possible in RE and that has been gone over.

A full lunar eclipse requires the Earth to be positioned precisely between the Moon and the Sun. This cannot occur when both bodies are simultaneously visible in the sky (i.e. when it is broad daylight and the Moon is visible), yet DLEs continue to occur. There's no way around it, it just can't happen under Copernican physics.

I still would like to see some solid evidence of it, the only evidence I have seen has been second or ever third hand accounts. when we were discussing it earlier the only solid evidence I saw was a partial eclipse right around sunrise/sunset

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 05, 2008, 02:02:08 PM

An eclipse happening while it is light out is very possible in RE and that has been gone over.

A full lunar eclipse requires the Earth to be positioned precisely between the Moon and the Sun. This cannot occur when both bodies are simultaneously visible in the sky (i.e. when it is broad daylight and the Moon is visible), yet DLEs continue to occur. There's no way around it, it just can't happen under Copernican physics.

Please clarify what you mean by "broad daylight".  Are we talking high noon, when the sun on the horizon, or any place in between?

I still would like to see some solid evidence of it, the only evidence I have seen has been second or ever third hand accounts. when we were discussing it earlier the only solid evidence I saw was a partial eclipse right around sunrise/sunset

Oh, I remember that thread. You (or someone else) demanded a photograph, but I believe I pointed out then, as I will now, that the last recorded full DLE occurred over 100 years ago, when photography was expensive, difficult to prepare and inaccessible to the common man. In human terms (though certainly not in cosmological terms), full DLEs have been something of a rarity (occuring roughly once every 100-150 years or so), suggesting close correlation between the rotational speeds of the Moon and Antimoon, with only a small difference allowing for occasional crossover.

I'll make sure I try and grab a snap of the next one if I'm still alive.

I have a photo (not mine) showing what appears to be a DLE:



Note that;

-The moon is not fully eclipsed

-It is daytime, or at least strong twilight

-The moon is very close to the horizon

I dont see how this is inconsistent with RE.

Please clarify what you mean by "broad daylight".  Are we talking high noon, when the sun on the horizon, or any place in between?

The DLE recorded by the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph on the 16th of July 1870 reportedly occured sometime around midday. Checking real-world archives will verify this.

There are plenty of flaws with the Round Earth model. Just read Earth Not a Globe, 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe, and Zetetic Cosmogony. Online versions can be found in my signature link.

Ok thanks.

Quote from: markjo on August 05, 2008, 02:15:07 PM

Please clarify what you mean by "broad daylight".  Are we talking high noon, when the sun on the horizon, or any place in between?

The DLE recorded by the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph on the 16th of July 1870 reportedly occured sometime around midday. Checking real-world archives will verify this.

Check me if I'm wrong, but lunar eclipses can only happen during a full moon, and the full moon tends to rise sometime after midday (usually around 6-7 PM (no DST)).

According to this page: http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth/action?opt=-m&img=MoonTopo.evif, the moons phase on the 16th july 1870 was 82% and waning. I dont think this would allow for any sort of eclipse to occur. I should note that the page has been accurate whenever I have used it to predict the moons phase (this does not mean it was accurate several hundred years ago obviously).