Just look out the window

Quote from: Archibald on November 30, 2011, 10:57:36 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 30, 2011, 09:39:02 PM

Quote from: Archibald on November 30, 2011, 06:49:29 PM

Quote from: thespheredude on November 30, 2011, 05:58:14 PM

You can prove the earth is a sphere by the geometry within it. Although the flat geometry is a good approximation to a certain extent (when distances are not great), when distances get large it fails. For example, on large scales in the earth, the sum of the angles of a triangle will sum more than 180 degrees. You need spheric geometry to describe geometrical properties of the earth that go beyond, say, 50-100 miles.

On the other hand, if the earth were flat, then all current notion of mechanics would fail, you would have to describe the world by some other set of theories that would come out quite more complicated. For example there would be almost no symmetry in the dynamics of solid bodies. Also, if the earth is flat, then the fact begs the question, are other planets flat? If they are, why do they always look round? For example, we could ask, how the hell is momentum conserved in the system of saturn and its disks?

A theory of a flat earth is not only inconvenient in describing the world, but i think it has several theoretical voids in it.

Well then you simply think wrong dear fellow.  I do hope you will stay a while and learn more about what you think you know.  You will inevitably learn you know very little at all.

According to FET, the sun orbits in a circle above the Earth. This circle gets wider and shorter throughout the year. What is odd, is that in order for us to have a 24 hour day, the velocity of the sun must increase as its radius increases and decrease as its radius decreases. This violates the conservation of angular momentum.

Either angular momentum is conserved, or the Earth is flat... make your choice.

either there is orbit around the earth or it is flat make your choice.

The sun does not orbit a point in space above the Earth, as this would violate the conservation of angular momentum,

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 30, 2011, 11:03:21 PM

Quote from: Archibald on November 30, 2011, 10:57:36 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 30, 2011, 09:39:02 PM

Quote from: Archibald on November 30, 2011, 06:49:29 PM

Quote from: thespheredude on November 30, 2011, 05:58:14 PM

You can prove the earth is a sphere by the geometry within it. Although the flat geometry is a good approximation to a certain extent (when distances are not great), when distances get large it fails. For example, on large scales in the earth, the sum of the angles of a triangle will sum more than 180 degrees. You need spheric geometry to describe geometrical properties of the earth that go beyond, say, 50-100 miles.

On the other hand, if the earth were flat, then all current notion of mechanics would fail, you would have to describe the world by some other set of theories that would come out quite more complicated. For example there would be almost no symmetry in the dynamics of solid bodies. Also, if the earth is flat, then the fact begs the question, are other planets flat? If they are, why do they always look round? For example, we could ask, how the hell is momentum conserved in the system of saturn and its disks?

A theory of a flat earth is not only inconvenient in describing the world, but i think it has several theoretical voids in it.

Well then you simply think wrong dear fellow.  I do hope you will stay a while and learn more about what you think you know.  You will inevitably learn you know very little at all.

According to FET, the sun orbits in a circle above the Earth. This circle gets wider and shorter throughout the year. What is odd, is that in order for us to have a 24 hour day, the velocity of the sun must increase as its radius increases and decrease as its radius decreases. This violates the conservation of angular momentum.

Either angular momentum is conserved, or the Earth is flat... make your choice.

either there is orbit around the earth or it is flat make your choice.

The sun does not orbit a point in space above the Earth, as this would violate the conservation of angular momentum,

No, the sun does not orbit above the earth as this would violate the definition of the word orbit.

Quote from: El Cid on November 29, 2011, 10:37:34 PM

On a flat Earth, objects far away would simply get smaller and never disappear under the horizon. 

Only if light is following straight lines. The bendy light hypothesis explains wery well why distant objects seem to disappear behind the horizon: The light rays coming from these objects can't reach the observer.

Any similarity with images by a certain Round-Earther is pure coincidence.

Now, when you say flat, you mean round, right?


View from the highest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa.  You can't see the horizon, but it certainly seems to me like the places closer are sort of bulging out at the viewer.  Probably because, um, they are.

If the human eye, our only method of seeing things, isn't reliable proof, then nothing is.

This is a wide angle lens view and the bulging that appears is due to that, not the curve of the earth. If the earth was flat, this photo would still look the same.

Quote from: The Knowledge on December 01, 2011, 04:43:57 AM

This is a wide angle lens view and the bulging that appears is due to that, not the curve of the earth. If the earth was flat, this photo would still look the same.

Give it up. Every time we try this, they tell us we've made it up and that wide-angle lenses don't work like that. Most people here just don't listen.

Quote from: thespheredude on November 30, 2011, 05:58:14 PM

You can prove the earth is a sphere by the geometry within it. Although the flat geometry is a good approximation to a certain extent (when distances are not great), when distances get large it fails. For example, on large scales in the earth, the sum of the angles of a triangle will sum more than 180 degrees. You need spheric geometry to describe geometrical properties of the earth that go beyond, say, 50-100 miles.

On the other hand, if the earth were flat, then all current notion of mechanics would fail, you would have to describe the world by some other set of theories that would come out quite more complicated. For example there would be almost no symmetry in the dynamics of solid bodies. Also, if the earth is flat, then the fact begs the question, are other planets flat? If they are, why do they always look round? For example, we could ask, how the hell is momentum conserved in the system of saturn and its disks?

A theory of a flat earth is not only inconvenient in describing the world, but i think it has several theoretical voids in it.

Well then you simply think wrong dear fellow.  I do hope you will stay a while and learn more about what you think you know.  You will inevitably learn you know very little at all.

Quote from: Archibald on November 30, 2011, 06:49:29 PM

Quote from: thespheredude on November 30, 2011, 05:58:14 PM

You can prove the earth is a sphere by the geometry within it. Although the flat geometry is a good approximation to a certain extent (when distances are not great), when distances get large it fails. For example, on large scales in the earth, the sum of the angles of a triangle will sum more than 180 degrees. You need spheric geometry to describe geometrical properties of the earth that go beyond, say, 50-100 miles.

On the other hand, if the earth were flat, then all current notion of mechanics would fail, you would have to describe the world by some other set of theories that would come out quite more complicated. For example there would be almost no symmetry in the dynamics of solid bodies. Also, if the earth is flat, then the fact begs the question, are other planets flat? If they are, why do they always look round? For example, we could ask, how the hell is momentum conserved in the system of saturn and its disks?

A theory of a flat earth is not only inconvenient in describing the world, but i think it has several theoretical voids in it.

Well then you simply think wrong dear fellow.  I do hope you will stay a while and learn more about what you think you know.  You will inevitably learn you know very little at all.

Maybe you should learn more about what you think you know, as evidently, you don't know much.

Quote from: jimftr on December 01, 2011, 12:09:21 PM

Quote from: Archibald on November 30, 2011, 06:49:29 PM

Quote from: thespheredude on November 30, 2011, 05:58:14 PM

You can prove the earth is a sphere by the geometry within it. Although the flat geometry is a good approximation to a certain extent (when distances are not great), when distances get large it fails. For example, on large scales in the earth, the sum of the angles of a triangle will sum more than 180 degrees. You need spheric geometry to describe geometrical properties of the earth that go beyond, say, 50-100 miles.

On the other hand, if the earth were flat, then all current notion of mechanics would fail, you would have to describe the world by some other set of theories that would come out quite more complicated. For example there would be almost no symmetry in the dynamics of solid bodies. Also, if the earth is flat, then the fact begs the question, are other planets flat? If they are, why do they always look round? For example, we could ask, how the hell is momentum conserved in the system of saturn and its disks?

A theory of a flat earth is not only inconvenient in describing the world, but i think it has several theoretical voids in it.

Well then you simply think wrong dear fellow.  I do hope you will stay a while and learn more about what you think you know.  You will inevitably learn you know very little at all.

Maybe you should learn more about what you think you know, as evidently, you don't know much.

And how then might this accusation be called evident?

Quote from: Archibald on December 01, 2011, 12:33:48 PM

Quote from: jimftr on December 01, 2011, 12:09:21 PM

Quote from: Archibald on November 30, 2011, 06:49:29 PM

Quote from: thespheredude on November 30, 2011, 05:58:14 PM

You can prove the earth is a sphere by the geometry within it. Although the flat geometry is a good approximation to a certain extent (when distances are not great), when distances get large it fails. For example, on large scales in the earth, the sum of the angles of a triangle will sum more than 180 degrees. You need spheric geometry to describe geometrical properties of the earth that go beyond, say, 50-100 miles.

On the other hand, if the earth were flat, then all current notion of mechanics would fail, you would have to describe the world by some other set of theories that would come out quite more complicated. For example there would be almost no symmetry in the dynamics of solid bodies. Also, if the earth is flat, then the fact begs the question, are other planets flat? If they are, why do they always look round? For example, we could ask, how the hell is momentum conserved in the system of saturn and its disks?

A theory of a flat earth is not only inconvenient in describing the world, but i think it has several theoretical voids in it.

Well then you simply think wrong dear fellow.  I do hope you will stay a while and learn more about what you think you know.  You will inevitably learn you know very little at all.

Maybe you should learn more about what you think you know, as evidently, you don't know much.

And how then might this accusation be called evident?

You say things that are incorrect. This is evidence that you don't know much, hence the fact of your ignorance being evident. 

Well then I would imagine a man of your self professed credibility will experience little hardship accompanying this bold statement with some  evidence backing it. 

It seems  a person of your caliber must be walked through the details of discussion rather than simply achieve these particulars by your own proclivity.

What precocious company we enjoy here.

While you attempt to conjure up some of your own evidence (since you proclaim it so honorable) keep in mind  the word ''things'', as you chose, is a pluralism.  I will patiently await  your response.

Quote from: Archibald on December 01, 2011, 12:44:10 PM

Well then I would imagine a man of your self professed credibility will experience little hardship accompanying this bold statement with some  evidence backing it. 

Simply look at your past posts and you will have your evidence 

Quote from: Archibald on December 01, 2011, 12:44:10 PM

It seems  a person of your caliber must be walked through the details of discussion rather than simply achieve these particulars by your own proclivity.

I would rather go through an argument carefully than just spew whatever popped into my head. It would seem that a person your caliber must be constantly shown the error of his ways, so that he might not corrupt the minds of others with nonsense and mountains of words that add nothing to the argument but instead make him look even more unintelligent than this arguments show him to be.

Quote from: Archibald on December 01, 2011, 12:44:10 PM

What precocious company we enjoy here.

Thank you 

Quote from: Archibald on December 01, 2011, 12:44:10 PM

While you attempt to conjure up some of your own evidence (since you proclaim it so honorable) keep in mind  the word ''things'', as you chose, is a pluralism.  I will patiently await  your response.

Gathering evidence is always honorable, whether you believe so or not is more your problem than mine.

As for the evidence...

You said that the sun circling a point above the Earth does not count as "orbit." This is incorrect...
You said that the Earth is flat. This is incorrect...

(See how I gave you more than one piece of evidence, therefore my use of pluralism is justified. Isn't learning fun.  )

I was asking if you thought the sun was orbiting  the earth.  You still havent told me what the sun is orbiting or what you suggest other advocates to think the sun is obiting.  The word orbit, as defined by most dictionaries I have encountered, has implications which according to your take on FE theorists, seems to be non existent.  It was a sarcastic inquiry yes, but as a reciprocation of  your own verbal aggression and violence (as sarcasm most certainly is considered a form of).  In other words, I allowed the aggressor to choose the rules in the conflict and subsequently followed  suit.  I have said the earth is flat.  This I base on personal observation and other  empirical evidence I gathered throughout my incarceration and continue to gather today.  My time on the  appalachian trail proved most useful, as did my time in arizona and new mexico, as is my time here on the shore of the  atlantic.  As for my ''mountains of words'', and ''unintelligent arguments'', you have countered and ended your disputes with things like, ''whatever floats your boat'', and ''i do enjoy the throwing of nonsense and look forward to more debates with you''.   Simply saying something is irrational or simply wrong is usually looked upon with higher acclaim when you provide a detailed explaination.  Oh, but this  type of explanation is the same thing you berate me for isnt it?  I suppose in your slippery adherence to what you consider integrity you are sort of a slave to this type of behaviour.

Quote from: Archibald on December 01, 2011, 01:31:20 PM

I was asking if you thought the sun was orbiting  the earth.  You still havent told me what the sun is orbiting or what you suggest other advocates to think the sun is obiting.  The word orbit, as defined by most dictionaries I have encountered, has implications which according to your take on FE theorists, seems to be non existent.  It was a sarcastic inquiry yes, but as a reciprocation of  your own verbal aggression and violence (as sarcasm most certainly is considered a form of).  In other words, I allowed the aggressor to choose the rules in the conflict and subsequently followed  suit.  I have said the earth is flat.  This I base on personal observation and other  empirical evidence I gathered throughout my incarceration and continue to gather today.  My time on the  appalachian trail proved most useful, as did my time in arizona and new mexico, as is my time here on the shore of the  atlantic.  As for my ''mountains of words'', and ''unintelligent arguments'', you have countered and ended your disputes with things like, ''whatever floats your boat'', and ''i do enjoy the throwing of nonsense and look forward to more debates with you''.   Simply saying something is irrational or simply wrong is usually looked upon with higher acclaim when you provide a detailed explaination.  Oh, but this  type of explanation is the same thing you berate me for isnt it?  I suppose in your slippery adherence to what you consider integrity you are sort of a slave to this type of behaviour.

Between changing your picture and learning how to write legibly, I really wish you had done the latter from our previous debacle.

I was asking if you thought the sun was orbiting  the earth.  You still havent told me what the sun is orbiting or what you suggest other advocates to think the sun is obiting.  The word orbit, as defined by most dictionaries I have encountered, has implications which according to your take on FE theorists, seems to be non existent.  It was a sarcastic inquiry yes, but as a reciprocation of  your own verbal aggression and violence (as sarcasm most certainly is considered a form of).  In other words, I allowed the aggressor to choose the rules in the conflict and subsequently followed  suit.  I have said the earth is flat.  This I base on personal observation and other  empirical evidence I gathered throughout my incarceration and continue to gather today.  My time on the  appalachian trail proved most useful, as did my time in arizona and new mexico, as is my time here on the shore of the  atlantic.  As for my ''mountains of words'', and ''unintelligent arguments'', you have countered and ended your disputes with things like, ''whatever floats your boat'', and ''i do enjoy the throwing of nonsense and look forward to more debates with you''.   Simply saying something is irrational or simply wrong is usually looked upon with higher acclaim when you provide a detailed explaination.  Oh, but this  type of explanation is the same thing you berate me for isnt it?  I suppose in your slippery adherence to what you consider integrity you are sort of a slave to this type of behaviour.

Quote from: Archibald on December 01, 2011, 01:31:20 PM

I was asking if you thought the sun was orbiting  the earth.  You still havent told me what the sun is orbiting or what you suggest other advocates to think the sun is obiting.  The word orbit, as defined by most dictionaries I have encountered, has implications which according to your take on FE theorists, seems to be non existent.  It was a sarcastic inquiry yes, but as a reciprocation of  your own verbal aggression and violence (as sarcasm most certainly is considered a form of).  In other words, I allowed the aggressor to choose the rules in the conflict and subsequently followed  suit.  I have said the earth is flat.  This I base on personal observation and other  empirical evidence I gathered throughout my incarceration and continue to gather today.  My time on the  appalachian trail proved most useful, as did my time in arizona and new mexico, as is my time here on the shore of the  atlantic.  As for my ''mountains of words'', and ''unintelligent arguments'', you have countered and ended your disputes with things like, ''whatever floats your boat'', and ''i do enjoy the throwing of nonsense and look forward to more debates with you''.   Simply saying something is irrational or simply wrong is usually looked upon with higher acclaim when you provide a detailed explaination.  Oh, but this  type of explanation is the same thing you berate me for isnt it?  I suppose in your slippery adherence to what you consider integrity you are sort of a slave to this type of behaviour.

Between changing your picture and learning how to write legibly, I really wish you had done the latter from our previous debacle.

I have a question, (I hope you do answer me this time). If the sun orbits a point vertically above the center of the flat earth, and it illuminates only a portion of the earth, this implies that light is not coming out of the sun in all directions. So, I would like a conceptual explanation of the laws of optics, and the physics of how the sun functions within the theory of the flat earth.

Also, I saw something in the FAQ about dark energy holding the stars and planets above us. The current theory of dark energy says it creates a repulsive force between all objects with mass, and it increases with distance. So, we have gravity pulling together and diminishing with distance, we also have DE pushing apart and decreasing with distance. We are also assuming the sun and the stars always have the same distance to the center of mass of the earth and are at a point where exactly gravity and DE cancel out. If the sun moves away by just a little bit, it will begin to accelerate away, if it moves closer just a little bit, it will crash with the earth. In modern physics, the center of mass of the sun does change position because it's dynamic, but in this model, it can't because there would be no sun! So, that should give you a headstart in trying to explain to me how the sun works in this model.

Now, asking questions makes me wonder more, so i'll throw a couple more:

Is angular momentum conserved in flat earth theory?

If the sun is orbiting a point vertically above the earth, there must be some source of work keeping it in orbit. Otherwise it would spiral off. What is this source of work?

If the earth is a cylinder, how deep is it? How do you know?

What is your mathematical description of gravitation?

Quote from: El Cid on November 29, 2011, 11:16:31 PM

Now, when you say flat, you mean round, right?


View from the highest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa.  You can't see the horizon, but it certainly seems to me like the places closer are sort of bulging out at the viewer.  Probably because, um, they are.

This is a wide angle lens view and the bulging that appears is due to that, not the curve of the earth. If the earth was flat, this photo would still look the same.

Quote from: El Cid on November 30, 2011, 03:32:12 PM

If the human eye, our only method of seeing things, isn't reliable proof, then nothing is.

Please review this thread, started by one of the more logical Round Earthers to understand your mistake. Please note that it was not written by myself, and that I even disputed it at first, but after some clarification admitted that he was right:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51439.0

Quote from: The Knowledge on December 01, 2011, 04:43:57 AM

This is a wide angle lens view and the bulging that appears is due to that, not the curve of the earth. If the earth was flat, this photo would still look the same.

Give it up. Every time we try this, they tell us we've made it up and that wide-angle lenses don't work like that. Most people here just don't listen.

I wasn't talking about the horizon, but the bulging look of the buildings. I thought you were implying it was curvature of the earth's surface. My apologies if I was mistaken in this regard.