OK YEAH LETS ROCK!
*Satellites
Don't exist.
Um, yes they do. In fact, with an amateur telescope or a very good pair of binoculars, one can not only see them, but make out specific features on them, such as antennas.
*Satellite TV
*GPS systems, which use satellites.
*Satellite radio.
Signals broadcast by tall radio towers.
No radio towers exist that have the ability to provide the coverage that satellites do, and this does not explain why satellite dishes must be aimed at a specific point in the sky (the satellite), or why the receiver for your everyday parabolic TV satellite dish only works properly at the focal point. If it was just picking up waves from towers, it would work fine with out the actual “dish” part.
*The fact that anybody can see satellites, when away from the city lights on a clear night. (Satellites look and move VERY different from airplanes or “shooting stars”)
Those are actually secret government airplanes. Or birds or something.
See my first rebuttal
*Zero G footage (in space), made by NASA, lasting longer than 25 seconds (the maximum time zero G can be sustained by NASA’s “Vomit Comet”).
I guess George Lucas invented the proton torpedo too, right?
(In other words, fake).
This is your best argument so far, but, alas, it hinges on that ever popular, global, multinational, ancient conspiracy. The only rebuttal I could offer would be to further discuss how ridiculous said conspiracy would be, but that’s all been said before.
*They round appearance of all the planets, which can bee seen by any amateur with a decent telescope. And by “round,” I do not merely mean that they look like circular discs. I mean that features, such as the craters of the moon, are distorted looking near the “edge” as the curve away from view.
Maybe the other planets are spheres. I don't see how this is relevent to the shape of the Earth, so I'm not going to spend much time thinking up any more of an explanation.
And yeah, I'm saying the Earth might be different from Mars, so don't ask.
If you don’t want to spend time thinking up an explanation, then don’t waste my time by attempting to provide one. Oh, wait. You didn’t. There’s no explanation there at all. Just an idea that you haven’t backed up with evidence. I’ll just say that I doubt the earth would differ so vastly from every other celestial object in the known universe for no apparent reason. Also, you misspelled “relevant.” You loose an additional 20 credibility points.
*A very large pendulum will appear to change direction, as the earth rotates under it. (This can be seen in science museums all over the world.)
The earth is spinning a little bit. It's also rocking back and forth slightly, as this produces tides. Either of these could explain small changes in a pendulum's path.
I didn’t insert all those links on the first page because I think blue text looks pretty, you know. A Foucault pendulum takes about 24 hours to make a rotation, as the earth rotates under it; the same rotation that causes night and day. High tide, however, comes twice a day: about once every twelve hours. Now, if tides were caused by water rushing “downhill” as the disc shaped earth tilts. This makes no sense because then high tide would only move in a circle around the outer ice wall (like water in a pie pan). This idea in no way fits the known patter of tides, which you would already know, had you clicked the link on “tides.” You would have also seen the lovely way that the earth’s rotation and the moon’s orbit coincide with the relative locations of low and high tides ever so nicely. I also find you claim that connection between tides and the moon is only coincidental unsatisfactory, and improbable.
You have also failed to explain why the behavior of Foucault pendulum’s is a function of its proximity to the equator, rather than the ice wall or the North Pole. According to the UN flag model, the equator is just the half way point between the center and edge of the earth. So, why is it that plane of swing of a Foucault pendulum is zero at the equator, rather than the North Pole? See the link on page one for more info, including a handy graph that explains what the hell I’m talking about.
*Satellite imagery, showing a curved earth.
Fake, duh.
Faked how? I can see my house, Disneyland, and every square mile in-between with satellite imagery. There are no locations that don’t exist, and no locations that are missing. Nothing has been added, nothing has been taken away, and all distances can be proven accurate with your car’s odometer. Satellite imagery holds up very well in comparison to the word as we see it from day to day.
*The fact that maps of the round earth hold true for those piloting / navigating / driving: airplanes, ships, and land vehicles. If the earth is in any way different, from the way it is currently mapped, (such as the idea that it looks like the UN flag), then distances would differ greatly than they do on the map of the round earth, which they don’t. The maps that are built off of a round earth accurately depict the distance, and directions of any two points on earth.
Nah. Land-based distances could be pretty much the same, and it seems to me like ocean-faring distances would be harder to measure without the help of star-based navigation or GPS.
Um, no. Land-based distances would not be “pretty much the same.” Especially south of the equator. The distortion of distance created by the UN flag model is huge. Compare FE and RE Australia and South America.
I don’t understand what point you are making by talking about determining one’s location at sea with GPS or thestars. Please elaborate.
Yeah they'll be off, but who's going to notice?
Who’s going to notice? Why don’t you read the first sentence of this one again? I think you had selective amnesia or something while responding to this one.
* The fact that maps of the round earth hold true for those piloting / navigating / driving: airplanes, ships, and land vehicles.
*On the subject of distances on maps, I would encourage you try one of these programs:
NASA’s World Wind and Google’s Google Earth. Both are programs that have the entire spherical earth, mapped, and photographed in 3D. Google Earth even has a measuring tool. How could this work properly if the map was being distorted as part of a conspiracy?
Um, they're fake. The distances those programs give you aren't correct.
Yes they are. Google Maps allows you to enter two locations. It will give you driving direction from A to B, along with the total distance you will travel. These distances can be confirmed by you car’s odometer if you drive the prescribed route.
*The sheer number of people who work for NASA, the military, airlines, weather services, satellite design and manufacturing, companies that design navigational systems and the companies that support those organizations.
This isn't even a question. Yeah, we get it. Big conspiracy.
Fair enough. I must admit this has been discussed at great length already.
*The fact that modern warships can fire artillery shells so far, they must account for the curvature of the earth when calculating its trajectory. That is, the shell goes over the horizon. This is also true of missiles
Wait, you mean those warships that are part of a country's military defense organizations? Like, controlled by the government and stuff?.
Again, I’ll spare you all the trite arguments of why the conspiracy is bullshit.
*Radio’s having a farther range at night, as the radio waves bounce off of the earth’s curved ionosphere: AM radio stations must cut their transmitting power in the evening, to prevent one station from bleeding over to the next. Ham radio operators can take advantage of this effect, and transmit and receive signals to and from other continents.
Why does this happen on your round earth model? Does it have something to do with the sun? It seems like it would. I'd assert the same thing happens on a flat earth; the sun interferes somehow.
As to why this happens on our round earth, I would encourage you to click the text that is in that lovely shade of hypertext blue. Again, I don’t understand your discussion of the sun’s alleged interference. Please explain.
*The sun is always setting and rising at the same time somewhere on earth.
I agree.
Well sure you do, but if you clicked that link, you would see that which parts of the earth are illuminated at any given time makes no sense on a flat earth model. Especially if you are talking about the whole the-sun-is-a- spotlight thing mentioned on the forum’s FAQ.
*Ocean tides and their relation ship to the moon’s orbit around earth. (This is also evidence of gravity.)
It's also evidence of coincidence. As I mentioned, tides are caused by a gentle see-sawing motion by the earth. Nothing to do with the moon.
I already addressed this above.
*Why the lit half** of the moon is always the one facing the sun. Look at the moon during sunset and see for yourself. During a full moon, the sun will be on the opposite side of the sky from the moon. How is any of this possible if the earth is flat?
My guess is the sun shines on the moon some times more than others.
Don’t answer my arguments when you don’t really have an answer. I can’t refute your guesses. I guess my intestines are full of purple leprechauns who are fond of Iceland, but wish tipping was permitted there, because the laws against it lead to awkward moments with bellhops and waiters. They eat rainbows, crap sunshine and, pee a full bodied wine that goes great with steak. Feel free to prove me wrong.
**There is no true dark side of the moon. Half the moon is always lit, and which half changes as it orbits around the earth, which it does at the same speed it rotates, so the same side of the moon is always facing us. The moon budges on this side, due to earth’s gravity.
No, the moon bulges on the Earthward side because of it's constant linear upward acceleration. Teardrop effect.
If constant linear acceleration were possible, this would be a good argument. Again, I won’t waste your time by beating a dead horse….. with a club that moves faster than light.
*The earth’s round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse, and the moon’s round shadow on earth during a solar eclipse.
They're both circular, obviously.
If what your suggesting where true, that would mean that the sun would have to be UNDER the earth during a lunar eclipse. The sun is always shining somewhere inhabited by humans. If you where right about the earth casting a round shadow due to it’s disc-like shape, only the underside would be lit during a lunar eclipse.
*Only some parts of the earth can see a solar eclipse, when they do occur. (From space, it looks like a round shadow (the moon’s) being cast onto the earth surface.)
I assume this is when the moon passes in front of the sun.
Yes it is. Your point here is……
*The fact that our model of the solar system (including how the earth orbits the sun), so accurately predicts where the moon, planets, and stars will appear in the sky on any given day,(It also predicts lunar and solar eclipses.) while no such model exists for a flat earth universe.
Sure a model exists for the flat earth universe. We predict planetary movement all the time, don't we? They must follow a predictable path.
Your logic here is faulty. You are operating under the premise that the earth is flat, therefore evidence MUST confirm it, rather than using logic to prove that the earth is flat.
*The seasons, and why they are opposite on the different sides of the equator. (January is Australia’s Summer, but North America's Winter.)
Because the radius of the suns orbit over the equator changes throughout the year; during the summer months in North America its orbit is closer to the north pole, while in the summer months of Australia it is expanded closer to the ice wall.
Loose the first fourteen words and replace the words “ice wall” with “South pole” and you have the RE model of how seasons work. All you have done is put it in FE terms, and made it geocentric.
*Why the numbers of hours of daylight are longer or shorter (depending on the time of year) the closer one is to the earth’s poles.
Same.
How can it be the same? The phenomenon I’ve described is dependent on a round earth rotating on an axis as it orbits the sun.
*The Northern and Southern hemispheres have different views of the night sky. Ask any astronomer, and they’ll tell you that the southern hemisphere’s view is better.
Different stars overhead, obviously.
How? If the earth where flat, “up” would be the same direction for everyone, so everyone would be looking at the same stars. If the stars where close enough to the earth to be viewed as you are describing, a parallax effect would be noticeable.
*The relative locations of the North Pole, South Pole, and the equator. (All three can’t even exist simultaneously in a flat earth model.)
This is wrong. North pole is the center. Equator is a ring equadistant from the center and the rim. South pole is the rim.
*Compasses: if the magnetic North and South poles were two points on a flat surface, it would be possible to pass one of them, and be facing both poles at the same time. This means one pole would be closer to you than the other and that you, the north pole, and the south pole, could form a straight line. Just can’t happen, as shown by compass needles, because magnetic North and South are never in the same direction.
You don't understand the flat earth model. The south pole is not a "point". .
Thank you. I was unaware of the UN flag model at the time of the original post. I do however have a different question. If I were standing at, say, the equator, facing North, I could face the Ice wall by turning to my left, my right, or turning around completely. It would just be a matter of how far away it was. It seems that on your flat earth, you are always facing south. There is such a thing as a South pointing compasses, you know. Only one direction will take you to the South pole.
Oh, you also misspelled “equidistant.” You lose an additional 20 creditability points.
*Any of the round earth arguments here. Many of which you can try for yourself.
Why don't you try them?
To prove my self right? That would be more of a waste of time than it was for you to insert my quote, type those twenty-three characters, and put three of them in bold.
And your whole conspiracy stuff is old and stale.
Agreed. Sorry for re-posting crap from when I was new to the forums.
This scattershot stuff makes a focused discussion completely impossible.
Impossible for you to explain one fact without contracting another? That’s the idea!
Thanks for being the only person to respond to a majority of my arguments, Unimportant.