Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.

  • 136 Replies
  • 35434 Views
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #90 on: November 12, 2012, 05:54:54 AM »
The curvature is almost imperceptible for the same reason it is when you are on the ground, because no matter in what direction you look, the height of the horizon is the same. You would need to be a lot higher to see it clearly.
Still, you can there is an almost imperceptible curvature in the earth in that video, I increased the contrast of the color for it to be more clear, the photo is not edited besides that, I only added a straight line so you could compare.


As for what Mau said, you cant really know in what angle related to the floor the camera is looking.

*

kenorb

  • 75
  • A new beginning always starts at the end
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #91 on: November 12, 2012, 07:33:39 AM »
The curvature is almost imperceptible for the same reason it is when you are on the ground, because no matter in what direction you look, the height of the horizon is the same. You would need to be a lot higher to see it clearly.
Still, you can there is an almost imperceptible curvature in the earth in that video, I increased the contrast of the color for it to be more clear, the photo is not edited besides that, I only added a straight line so you could compare.


As for what Mau said, you cant really know in what angle related to the floor the camera is looking.

You'll have to do software lens correction first based on the camera model which they used, then you could draw a line (e.g. Adobe After Effects or Adobe Bridge).
Otherwise every optical lens has varying forms of curvature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)



Here you have different pictures from this flight:
http://ddeville.com/derek/Qu8k.html
And most of them are curved in different ways.


?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #92 on: November 12, 2012, 07:47:42 AM »
Indeed, no curvature whatsoever across Lake Ontario (55 km distance to Vinemount Ridge, 213 m altitude, we will ascend to 240 m - 59 meter curvature absolutely does not exist) - bear in mind the photographs were taken from a lower altitude, we ascend to 240 meters so that no questions will remain.



If we're 240 meters up, then the horizon (eye line) should cut behind the CN Tower at 240m, but it doesnt.  Proof of a round earth.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #93 on: November 12, 2012, 11:46:32 AM »
I just did that because you said I should see the "flatness" in that videp, but if we agree on lens distortion theres no point in talking about flatness on videos.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #94 on: December 09, 2012, 06:53:43 PM »
Local linearity.  If you zoom in enough on a curve (such as the surface of the Earth), it appears flat

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #95 on: March 15, 2017, 12:18:00 PM »

Another fact? Video camera installed on rocket that reaches 121,000 ft.





Jump to: 3:20
It actually shows the flatness (except the other cameras).


Update: Ah, completely forgotten. There are no stars, it's fake. Please ignore.

GREAT EVIDENCE THERE, UNTIL IT SHOWS THE EARTH FROM A HIGHER POSITION FROM 5 MINUTES ONWARDS...


YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING RIGHT?


Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #96 on: March 16, 2017, 03:38:47 AM »
perhaps best left to a local perma noob...  after all it is in the debate section.

firstly if this is known fact then why is it up for debate?

secondly why are none of these photos taken close to the water? surely that will prove there is no curvature?

but one point that is missing here is the facts. there is no drop of 2540m that is true. this is how you view something in the distance;



the common misconception is that you see like this;



at best those photos are inconclusive. however there have been many photos where 'hills' of water have been shown on boats at such short distances. just lurk for yourself to see them.

number 1. well this has already shown to be false. not only that if the change was as small as a few inches do you think you could tell over 250m? i wouldnt detect a few inches over 25m and you think you will notice after 250? do remember that your example of a 1m drop was wrong to begin with before you reply. even if it was 1m it would actually be 0.5m or about 20 inches. over 250m i dont think i would notice a change in 20 inches.

number 2. i have only seen explanations here for the accountability of a horizontal horizon. however if you can device an actual experiment to show there is no curve, then you have some evidence for your case. however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either.

number 3. when you find a perfectly strait tunnel for several miles you may have a case. was this a thought experiment of have you witnessed this? again refer to point 1 that i made.

number 4. its a shame your strongest evidence was this. i think the horizon being strait is far stronger. what is happening here is that your eye is drawn to the horizon. the horizon is not actually curving upwards (there is another website for that bat shit theory) it would be best described as an optical illusion i guess. next time you are high up do not focus on the horizon and just look strait, its quite hard as your eye is always drawn down to the horizon. next time you may notice that the horizon does not appear to be at eye level but your eye is just drawn to the horizon.

to summarise;

what you have presented here are weak facts that in your mind equal solid evidence. if its such evidence then how is it so easy to make a counter argument. also its worth asking why you dismiss all evidence that points towards a round earth? so in 1 week you have found these 3 'facts' and decided to dismiss everything you have been told and now you are declaring that the earth is flat. so what does make this theory stand out from other conspiracy theories anyway? its very close to religion, in the sense that the society only give theories that cant be proven either way or if they can they have it covered by a global conspiracy. oh and not to mention most of the belief comes from a fictional book that makes many claims that have NEVER been proven.

yes this is my attack  ::) spreading my sheeple lies!

"i dont think i would notice a change"

Why is it, none of the claims of a spinning speeding earth can be detected on earth? Doesn't that give you reason to pause, and think? Or is your trained response to run to a fabricated excuse in some book? If you have to access excuse after excuse to explain away what is not observed, shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #97 on: March 16, 2017, 03:49:25 AM »
perhaps best left to a local perma noob...  after all it is in the debate section.

firstly if this is known fact then why is it up for debate?

secondly why are none of these photos taken close to the water? surely that will prove there is no curvature?

but one point that is missing here is the facts. there is no drop of 2540m that is true. this is how you view something in the distance;



the common misconception is that you see like this;



at best those photos are inconclusive. however there have been many photos where 'hills' of water have been shown on boats at such short distances. just lurk for yourself to see them.

number 1. well this has already shown to be false. not only that if the change was as small as a few inches do you think you could tell over 250m? i wouldnt detect a few inches over 25m and you think you will notice after 250? do remember that your example of a 1m drop was wrong to begin with before you reply. even if it was 1m it would actually be 0.5m or about 20 inches. over 250m i dont think i would notice a change in 20 inches.

number 2. i have only seen explanations here for the accountability of a horizontal horizon. however if you can device an actual experiment to show there is no curve, then you have some evidence for your case. however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either.

number 3. when you find a perfectly strait tunnel for several miles you may have a case. was this a thought experiment of have you witnessed this? again refer to point 1 that i made.

number 4. its a shame your strongest evidence was this. i think the horizon being strait is far stronger. what is happening here is that your eye is drawn to the horizon. the horizon is not actually curving upwards (there is another website for that bat shit theory) it would be best described as an optical illusion i guess. next time you are high up do not focus on the horizon and just look strait, its quite hard as your eye is always drawn down to the horizon. next time you may notice that the horizon does not appear to be at eye level but your eye is just drawn to the horizon.

to summarise;

what you have presented here are weak facts that in your mind equal solid evidence. if its such evidence then how is it so easy to make a counter argument. also its worth asking why you dismiss all evidence that points towards a round earth? so in 1 week you have found these 3 'facts' and decided to dismiss everything you have been told and now you are declaring that the earth is flat. so what does make this theory stand out from other conspiracy theories anyway? its very close to religion, in the sense that the society only give theories that cant be proven either way or if they can they have it covered by a global conspiracy. oh and not to mention most of the belief comes from a fictional book that makes many claims that have NEVER been proven.

yes this is my attack  ::) spreading my sheeple lies!

"i dont think i would notice a change"

Why is it, none of the claims of a spinning speeding earth can be detected on earth? Doesn't that give you reason to pause, and think? Or is your trained response to run to a fabricated excuse in some book? If you have to access excuse after excuse to explain away what is not observed, shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?

You are wrong the Rotation can be detected,
 See Foucault pendulum
See the movement of the sun, Moon and Stars
See the observation from Astronauts

Stop lying.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #98 on: March 16, 2017, 04:38:17 AM »
perhaps best left to a local perma noob...  after all it is in the debate section.

firstly if this is known fact then why is it up for debate?

secondly why are none of these photos taken close to the water? surely that will prove there is no curvature?

but one point that is missing here is the facts. there is no drop of 2540m that is true. this is how you view something in the distance;



the common misconception is that you see like this;



at best those photos are inconclusive. however there have been many photos where 'hills' of water have been shown on boats at such short distances. just lurk for yourself to see them.

number 1. well this has already shown to be false. not only that if the change was as small as a few inches do you think you could tell over 250m? i wouldnt detect a few inches over 25m and you think you will notice after 250? do remember that your example of a 1m drop was wrong to begin with before you reply. even if it was 1m it would actually be 0.5m or about 20 inches. over 250m i dont think i would notice a change in 20 inches.

number 2. i have only seen explanations here for the accountability of a horizontal horizon. however if you can device an actual experiment to show there is no curve, then you have some evidence for your case. however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either.

number 3. when you find a perfectly strait tunnel for several miles you may have a case. was this a thought experiment of have you witnessed this? again refer to point 1 that i made.

number 4. its a shame your strongest evidence was this. i think the horizon being strait is far stronger. what is happening here is that your eye is drawn to the horizon. the horizon is not actually curving upwards (there is another website for that bat shit theory) it would be best described as an optical illusion i guess. next time you are high up do not focus on the horizon and just look strait, its quite hard as your eye is always drawn down to the horizon. next time you may notice that the horizon does not appear to be at eye level but your eye is just drawn to the horizon.

to summarise;

what you have presented here are weak facts that in your mind equal solid evidence. if its such evidence then how is it so easy to make a counter argument. also its worth asking why you dismiss all evidence that points towards a round earth? so in 1 week you have found these 3 'facts' and decided to dismiss everything you have been told and now you are declaring that the earth is flat. so what does make this theory stand out from other conspiracy theories anyway? its very close to religion, in the sense that the society only give theories that cant be proven either way or if they can they have it covered by a global conspiracy. oh and not to mention most of the belief comes from a fictional book that makes many claims that have NEVER been proven.

yes this is my attack  ::) spreading my sheeple lies!

"i dont think i would notice a change"

Why is it, none of the claims of a spinning speeding earth can be detected on earth? Doesn't that give you reason to pause, and think? Or is your trained response to run to a fabricated excuse in some book? If you have to access excuse after excuse to explain away what is not observed, shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?

You are wrong the Rotation can be detected,
 See Foucault pendulum
See the movement of the sun, Moon and Stars
See the observation from Astronauts

Stop lying.

If the earth's rotation is causing the pendulum to swing, then why do all of them need to be manually started?

How does the cut of the ball and socket joint affect the movement of the counterweight?

Why do some pendulums not work at all?

Why do some pendulums work in reverse?

Of course, you rarely get to see the last two, they never make it into a "science" museum, do they?

Another point about the F/P, from Brown university: "Wherever you put it, Foucault's Pendulum swings from a motionless point while the earth rotates beneath it." EXCUSE ME! That would only be true if the F/P were sitting dead center of earth's axis point. What is claimed to be rotating is the table under the counterweight. Anywhere else on earth, you are said to be moving west to east, not in a circle that will cause the table mounted to earth to rotate in a circle under the counterweight.

This too, and is the eye-opener of how much you are tricked, from the San Diego Natural History Museum: "Because of air friction and gravity the pendulum would eventually stop swinging, but a magnet encircling the cable pulls on the cable with each swing. Electric current controlling the magnetism is turned on and off with each swing of the pendulum."

Did you see that? They control the swing with electromagnetism! It's not the rotation of earth that is causing the swinging and movement of the counterweight, it is the cut of the ball/socket joint, and the use of magnetism to pull the counterweight in the direction of the applied electric current. The rotation of earth has nothing to do with the Foucault pendulum, because earth is motionless. We've been Jedi mind-fffed with magician's trickery!

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/n2k/visibility/Alison_Errico/Soft%20Moon/pendulum.html

http://www.sdnhm.org/about-us/history/museum-lore/foucault-pendulum/

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #99 on: March 16, 2017, 05:07:48 AM »

If the earth's rotation is causing the pendulum to swing, then why do all of them need to be manually started?

the swing has to be started manually, the rotation is caused by the earth rotation
was already explained to you
but you ignored it

Quote
How does the cut of the ball and socket joint affect the movement of the counterweight?

the effect is taken out by using a very long cable
was already explained to you in a link for the setup of a Foucault Pendulum
but you ignored it

Quote

Why do some pendulums not work at all?

if the pendulum rotates or not depends on the direction of the pendulum swing and the location of the setup
was already explained to you in a link for the setup of a Foucault Pendulum
but you ignored it

Quote
Why do some pendulums work in reverse?

the direction of the pendulum rotation depends on the location of the setup (norther or southern hemisphere)
was already explained to you in a link for the setup of a Foucault Pendulum
but you ignored it

Quote
Of course, you rarely get to see the last two, they never make it into a "science" museum, do they?

yes, there are a lot of Foucault pendulums setup in science "museums"

but you ignored it

Quote
Another point about the F/P, from Brown university: "Wherever you put it, Foucault's Pendulum swings from a motionless point while the earth rotates beneath it." EXCUSE ME! That would only be true if the F/P were sitting dead center of earth's axis point. What is claimed to be rotating is the table under the counterweight. Anywhere else on earth, you are said to be moving west to east, not in a circle that will cause the table mounted to earth to rotate in a circle under the counterweight.

This too, and is the eye-opener of how much you are tricked, from the San Diego Natural History Museum: "Because of air friction and gravity the pendulum would eventually stop swinging, but a magnet encircling the cable pulls on the cable with each swing. Electric current controlling the magnetism is turned on and off with each swing of the pendulum."

Did you see that? They control the swing with electromagnetism! It's not the rotation of earth that is causing the swinging and movement of the counterweight, it is the cut of the ball/socket joint, and the use of magnetism to pull the counterweight in the direction of the applied electric current. The rotation of earth has nothing to do with the Foucault pendulum, because earth is motionless. We've been Jedi mind-fffed with magician's trickery!

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/n2k/visibility/Alison_Errico/Soft%20Moon/pendulum.html

http://www.sdnhm.org/about-us/history/museum-lore/foucault-pendulum/

did you look up who Alison Errico is?
his/her title is:
Alison Errico
Laser Safety Officer, Medical Physics and Radiation Safety
617-638-8828

see: https://www.bu.edu/ehs/contact-us/staff-directory/

it looks like a private Webpage of that person on the University Server.
please show me the official part of that that is published and confirmed from the University.

do a little more research on what you post. it took me 1 min to find this information.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #100 on: March 16, 2017, 05:14:59 AM »

"i dont think i would notice a change"

Why is it, none of the claims of a spinning speeding earth can be detected on earth? Doesn't that give you reason to pause, and think? Or is your trained response to run to a fabricated excuse in some book? If you have to access excuse after excuse to explain away what is not observed, shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?
You ask, "shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?"
Yes, I think about it I know why what you ask cannot be detected without some sort of instruments.

You may not like or accept that, well tough cheese, them's the facts!

Why is it that you will never fact the fact that the initial deduction for the rotating (0.0007 rpm is hardly spinning) was from astronomical observations?

Uniform linear motion cannot be detected at all without reference to other objects.
Even slow rotational motion (and 0.0007 rpm is certainly slow) cannot be detected without reference to objects known to be fixed of with suitable instruments.
You will not ever acknowledge that we repeatedly claim it.
Since the time of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Kepler though various instruments have been developed that do detect rotation.

Some of these were:
  • The gyroscope: Invented by Foucault, though he did detect some rotation, did not have the means to keep it spinning for long enough to be convincing.

    The gyroscope has since been used in the marine Gyro-Compass, see Gyro Compass on Ships: Construction, Working, and Usage
    and the Gyro-theodolite,
    see NORTH SEEKING GYROSCOPE
    and Use of gyrotheodolite in underground control network.
    Both on these instruments rely on the earth's rotation to accurately find true North, not Magnetic North as with a magnetic compass.

  • Ring laser gyroscopes with resolution capable of measuring the earth's rotation are now commonly used in aircraft Inertial Reference Systems.
    This sort of thing: Honeywell Aerospace, GG1320AN Digital Ring Laser Gyroscope

    This one has a "drift" that would do very well: Angular Random Walk (ARW) 0.0035 deg/hour (typical).
     Angular Random Walk means that in the absence of any movement,  after an hour it will typically show 0.0035°.
    Since the earth rotates at about 15°/hr, this gyroscope will easily measure the earth's rotation.

For myself I do not need any excuses. I see observations all over the place that are completely unexplainable on any flat earth model that I have seen. These range from simple things like:
  • Measured east-west distances agree with the globe distances (Google Earth, GPS maps, etc) and not with Flat Earth map distances,

  • the appearance, direction and timing of sunrises and sunsets,

  • the sun and moon staying a constant size from rising to setting,

  • the sharp sea/sky horizon over the ocean,

  • the fact that the distance to the horizon changes as the observer's height changes,

  • the constellations staying the exactly the same size and shape wherever they are in the sky,

Now, these may not convince you, but, along with the plethora of astronomical evidence, they satisfy me!


Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #101 on: March 16, 2017, 06:05:43 AM »

"i dont think i would notice a change"

Why is it, none of the claims of a spinning speeding earth can be detected on earth? Doesn't that give you reason to pause, and think? Or is your trained response to run to a fabricated excuse in some book? If you have to access excuse after excuse to explain away what is not observed, shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?
You ask, "shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?"
Yes, I think about it I know why what you ask cannot be detected without some sort of instruments.

You may not like or accept that, well tough cheese, them's the facts!

Why is it that you will never fact the fact that the initial deduction for the rotating (0.0007 rpm is hardly spinning) was from astronomical observations?

Uniform linear motion cannot be detected at all without reference to other objects.
Even slow rotational motion (and 0.0007 rpm is certainly slow) cannot be detected without reference to objects known to be fixed of with suitable instruments.
You will not ever acknowledge that we repeatedly claim it.
Since the time of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Kepler though various instruments have been developed that do detect rotation.

Some of these were:
  • The gyroscope: Invented by Foucault, though he did detect some rotation, did not have the means to keep it spinning for long enough to be convincing.

    The gyroscope has since been used in the marine Gyro-Compass, see Gyro Compass on Ships: Construction, Working, and Usage
    and the Gyro-theodolite,
    see NORTH SEEKING GYROSCOPE
    and Use of gyrotheodolite in underground control network.
    Both on these instruments rely on the earth's rotation to accurately find true North, not Magnetic North as with a magnetic compass.

  • Ring laser gyroscopes with resolution capable of measuring the earth's rotation are now commonly used in aircraft Inertial Reference Systems.
    This sort of thing: Honeywell Aerospace, GG1320AN Digital Ring Laser Gyroscope

    This one has a "drift" that would do very well: Angular Random Walk (ARW) 0.0035 deg/hour (typical).
     Angular Random Walk means that in the absence of any movement,  after an hour it will typically show 0.0035°.
    Since the earth rotates at about 15°/hr, this gyroscope will easily measure the earth's rotation.

For myself I do not need any excuses. I see observations all over the place that are completely unexplainable on any flat earth model that I have seen. These range from simple things like:
  • Measured east-west distances agree with the globe distances (Google Earth, GPS maps, etc) and not with Flat Earth map distances,

  • the appearance, direction and timing of sunrises and sunsets,

  • the sun and moon staying a constant size from rising to setting,

  • the sharp sea/sky horizon over the ocean,

  • the fact that the distance to the horizon changes as the observer's height changes,

  • the constellations staying the exactly the same size and shape wherever they are in the sky,

Now, these may not convince you, but, along with the plethora of astronomical evidence, they satisfy me!

"the initial deduction for the rotating (0.0007 rpm is hardly spinning) was from astronomical observations?"

"the fact that the distance to the horizon changes as the observer's height changes,"

Perhaps, but it is always a flat level horizon, no matter the height gained. At least till you get high enough to see, "a disc with up-turned edges"(Piccard).

Yeah, gotta slow that ground moving at 1,000 MPH right down, don't cha? If you mean, out-of-this-world by astronomical, it would have to be, because the effects of a spinning speeding spherical earth cannot be observed here on earth, can it?

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19003
  • Or should I?
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #102 on: March 16, 2017, 07:11:02 AM »
You think refraction will save you?

Posting this purely for sig-worthiness.

The OP was cringy, lucky sandokhan was here to save the thread.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #103 on: March 16, 2017, 07:22:42 AM »
You think refraction will save you?

Posting this purely for sig-worthiness.

The OP was cringy, lucky sandokhan was here to save the thread.

he saved nothing,
even if you take refraction in account it does not prove flat earth. it even more disprove it.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #104 on: March 16, 2017, 08:17:49 AM »
Y'all are some retards! If you think that the earth is flat then how can you see the earth clearly a sphere from space. The pictures of space are not made in a holly wood basement either. There is this thing called science and proof you need to look into it. and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth take a really big ball and put something micro on it so small you can't see it. It will be flat to the F**KING Dumb a*s

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #105 on: March 16, 2017, 12:29:39 PM »
Y'all are some retards! If you think that the earth is flat then how can you see the earth clearly a sphere from space. The pictures of space are not made in a holly wood basement either. There is this thing called science and proof you need to look into it. and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth take a really big ball and put something micro on it so small you can't see it. It will be flat to the F**KING Dumb a*s

Ah, the need to poison the well before presenting an argument. Clearly the desperate act of survival, survival of a defunct religious belief.

"and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth"

Ah, but it is claimed that Toronto, and ships, disappear over the curvature of the water on earth, so what do you mean people on earth cannot see the curvature? You spherical earthers really need to get on the same page, you really do!

Oh look, you end with an insult, yeah, that confirms your point, NOT!

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #106 on: March 16, 2017, 01:04:08 PM »
...
Ah, but it is claimed that Toronto, and ships, disappear over the curvature of the water on earth, so what do you mean people on earth cannot see the curvature? You spherical earthers really need to get on the same page, you really do!

Oh look, you end with an insult, yeah, that confirms your point, NOT!

you can see the effect of the curvature.

lets clear it for ever, come to Niagara on the Lake and take a look yourself.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #107 on: March 16, 2017, 01:46:45 PM »
If the earth's rotation is causing the pendulum to swing, then why do all of them need to be manually started?
They don't. Stop lying.
The swing is caused by gravity and inertia.
Earth's rotation causes the apparent rotation of the plane of oscillation.

How does the cut of the ball and socket joint affect the movement of the counterweight?
It doesn't.
Many don't even have such a joint.
If it affects the movement (other than merely restricting it to pivot about that point) then it is not a Foucault's pendulum.

Why do some pendulums not work at all?
Because people haven't started swinging them or because they are generic pendulums which are restricted to a single (or small range) plane of oscillation.

Why do some pendulums work in reverse?
Because they are in the opposite hemisphere, and should be moving in reverse.

Of course, you rarely get to see the last two, they never make it into a "science" museum, do they?
Sure you do.
Go to one in the southern hemisphere, you will see it in "reverse".
Go to one and just wait for long enough and it will slow down and stop.

Another point about the F/P, from Brown university: "Wherever you put it, Foucault's Pendulum swings from a motionless point while the earth rotates beneath it." EXCUSE ME! That would only be true if the F/P were sitting dead center of earth's axis point. What is claimed to be rotating is the table under the counterweight. Anywhere else on earth, you are said to be moving west to east, not in a circle that will cause the table mounted to earth to rotate in a circle under the counterweight.
And how nice, you resort to quote mining them.
That isn't what they said.
That was a quote they provided from someone else.
If you kept reading the page you would notice this:
Quote
The elegant answer is that the pendulum swings in a fixed plane and the Earth rotates beneath it, but this explanation is misleading. At the north or south pole, the pendulum is moving in a fixed plane (if we disregard the fact that the Earth is also revolving through space), so the plane of the pendulum seems to rotate through 360° as the Earth makes one full rotation. At any other point on Earth, however, the point at which the pendulum is attached cannot be considered a "fixed point," because that point also moves as the Earth rotates.

But of course, why would you ever be honest? That would require admitting Earth is round.

Did you see that? They control the swing with electromagnetism! It's not the rotation of earth that is causing the swinging
Yes, they keep it swinging using magnets. Not all do. The one closest to me doesn't have a magnet, nor a ball and socket joint, yet every time it has been used, it always rotates in the same direction, regardless of where you start it.
Earth's rotation doesn't make it swing, it changes the plane it appears to swing in.

How about instead of trying to refute crap no one is claiming you instead focus on trying to refute what people ARE saying?

The rotation of earth has nothing to do with the Foucault pendulum, because earth is motionless.
Nope. It has loads to do with it because Earth is in motion and its rotation causes an apparent change in the plane of oscillation.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #108 on: March 16, 2017, 01:48:54 PM »
Ah, but it is claimed that Toronto, and ships, disappear over the curvature of the water on earth, so what do you mean people on earth cannot see the curvature? You spherical earthers really need to get on the same page, you really do!
You cannot see the curvature at this height, just its effect.
Seeing a ship disappear below the horizon is an effect of the curvature.
Seeing the curve itself would be seeing the curvature.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #109 on: March 16, 2017, 05:17:42 PM »
Y'all are some retards! If you think that the earth is flat then how can you see the earth clearly a sphere from space. The pictures of space are not made in a holly wood basement either. There is this thing called science and proof you need to look into it. and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth take a really big ball and put something micro on it so small you can't see it. It will be flat to the F**KING Dumb a*s

Ah, the need to poison the well before presenting an argument. Clearly the desperate act of survival, survival of a defunct religious belief.

And what would this "defunct religious belief" be? Do you mean the Christianity of the early English monk, the "Venerable Bede"?

Quote
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.

In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.

Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:

    “We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”

Looks like this Globe idea started before the time of the Venerable Bede (673–735) and note that
he was very specific about the shape "represent the figure of a perfect globe".

It is you clinging to a relatively new hypothesis of a flat earth with sun, moon, planets and stars circling above it thar is desparately clinging to life.
Can you show me any early flat earth belief that could not even explain the rising an setting of the sun?

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19003
  • Or should I?
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #110 on: March 16, 2017, 05:57:09 PM »
Y'all are some retards! If you think that the earth is flat then how can you see the earth clearly a sphere from space. The pictures of space are not made in a holly wood basement either. There is this thing called science and proof you need to look into it. and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth take a really big ball and put something micro on it so small you can't see it. It will be flat to the F**KING Dumb a*s

Posts like this just make you look stupid, it's literally all it achieves, if you make it to 1000 posts I can recommend someone to hone your skills at ad hominems and well poisoning. He's literally the best shitposter I've ever seen
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #111 on: May 19, 2017, 10:05:07 PM »
Y'all are some retards! If you think that the earth is flat then how can you see the earth clearly a sphere from space. The pictures of space are not made in a holly wood basement either. There is this thing called science and proof you need to look into it. and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth take a really big ball and put something micro on it so small you can't see it. It will be flat to the F**KING Dumb a*s

Posts like this just make you look stupid, it's literally all it achieves, if you make it to 1000 posts I can recommend someone to hone your skills at ad hominems and well poisoning. He's literally the best shitposter I've ever seen

Yes disputeone, posts like that do make you look stupid. Because it implies a belief that every single photo from space is fake, which is obviously crazy and entirely without evidence.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #112 on: May 20, 2017, 12:45:09 AM »
Unbelievable that globers still believe in the FP and other ancient methodes to proof a globe.
Take into consideration how much we developed medical science in the last hundred of years.
What if we would use the medical 'science' prior to 1900 to cure someone today  ?
I give that person, depending on the disease , hardly any chance at all......

What is it that we believe Eratosthenes could measure the circomference of a globe earth
What is it that we believe that Newton worked out gravity because an apple fall on his head
What is it that an invalid ancient test like the Cavendish rock and FP still haven't been updated in 2017 for better ones ?

It is clear that if medical science was that lazy, hanging on to myths and invalid research of the past, people with chronical headaches would have their scull opened to release some pressure off their vains........ :o

But since every scientist around the globe knows the earth is round ....... a simple question.
If there are countless of scientists perfectly capable of explaining the cosmos, curvature, spacetravel, refraction etc. just give me two or three names....

Who is according to globers the most trustworthy scientific outlet of them all ?
Because Bill Nye, Neil dGT, Kraus, astronauts, that 'mikaku
' Japanese guy etc have all proven to have limited understanding in many aspects.
Sure they know about their specific field, but make cringeworthy mistakes when leaving their comfortzones.
Heard them all make unbelievable ignorant remarks when adressing some things outside of their specific field.

So who is an outlet who does have an accurate overall understanding about the cosmos, curvature, refraction, spacetravel and relativity ?
Can't be hard globers, can it ? Because 'every scientist out there knows what earth is like'

« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 12:51:27 AM by dutchy »

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #113 on: May 20, 2017, 03:03:13 AM »
Unbelievable that globers still believe in the FP and other ancient methodes to proof a globe.
Yes, other "ancient" methods which are still just as reliable today as they were back there.

Sure we have better things, like laser ring gyroscopes and theodites, but they can be expensive or difficult to get.

Take into consideration how much we developed medical science in the last hundred of years.
You do realise that medicine is much much much more complex than far simpler sciences like the shape of Earth?

What if we would use the medical 'science' prior to 1900 to cure someone today  ?
You mean the things which modern science has shown to be a load of crap?
It is a good thing you put science in quotes there, because the crap you are thinking of isn't scientific in any way. Most of it was just superstitious garbage.

Regardless, the key thing is that FP and the like hasn't been disproven like blood letting has.
It still works today just like it did back then.

Do you also think we should stop using wheels because ancient people did?

What is it that we believe Eratosthenes could measure the circomference of a globe earth
Do you mean why?
If so, it is because he did. It takes quite simple math to work it out.

What is it that we believe that Newton worked out gravity because an apple fall on his head
Because people are fools that like to believe in nice stories.
There is no evidence for any apple falling on his head. But there is a decent amount for him partially figuring out gravity.

What is it that an invalid ancient test like the Cavendish rock and FP still haven't been updated in 2017 for better ones ?
Pure bullshit.
They were never invalid tests.
They were always valid.
They have also been updated with far more accurate versions which are capable of measuring it far more precisely.
But do you know what has remained consistent? The result, that Earth is round and gravity is real.

It is clear that if medical science was that lazy, hanging on to myths and invalid research of the past, people with chronical headaches would have their scull opened to release some pressure off their vains........ :o
That is because it was myths of the past, rather than science of the past.

If there are countless of scientists perfectly capable of explaining the cosmos, curvature, spacetravel, refraction etc. just give me two or three names....
Well, there are those you named, and plenty of others, but as you named them I see no reason to go through listing more. If you would like to find some, feel free to do a search for a local university's physics department.

Who is according to globers the most trustworthy scientific outlet of them all ?
We don't declare any as the most trust worthy.

Now then, do you have anything to refute these ancient proofs and show that they are invalid like you claim?
Do you have anything to support Earth being flat?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #114 on: May 20, 2017, 03:09:44 AM »
Unbelievable that globers still believe in the FP and other ancient methodes to proof a globe.
They believe those "ancient methodes to proof a globe" because those "ancient methodes to proof a globe" are consistent with proofs and measurements made right up to the present day.

Quote from: dutchy
Take into consideration how much we developed medical science in the last hundred of years.
What if we would use the medical 'science' prior to 1900 to cure someone today  ?
I give that person, depending on the disease , hardly any chance at all......
If you "would use the medical 'science' prior to 1900 to cure someone today" you would be criminally negligent and probably locked up for your efforts.

Quote from: dutchy
What is it that we believe Eratosthenes could measure the circomference of a globe earth
Because Eratosthenes result, though not as accurate, is quite consistent with measurements done by the Indian mathematician Aryabhata (AD 476–550), the medieval Persian Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (973–1048), Jean Picard in 1669–1670 to US geodesist Hayford  in ~1910 with an accuracy of 200 m to recent even more more precise measurements from NASA.

Quote from: dutchy
What is it that we believe that Newton worked out gravity because an apple fall on his head
"Newton" never "worked out gravity because an apple fell on his head"!
Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke did much research and measurement before Newton produced his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.
And those "Laws" have been verified as accurate. Of course Einstein's relativity gives corrections that apply under extreme conditions of velocity or energy. But Newton's Laws are still the ones used for almost all calculations, with usually very small relativistic corrections applied when required.

Quote from: dutchy
What is it that an invalid ancient test like the Cavendish rock
There was no "invalid ancient test like the Cavendish rock". The Cavendish Experiment was quite valid and used heavy lead spheres, not a  ;D rock  ;D.
His results were within 1% of the present value, not bad for something done in 1798/9.
Though we do not have to rely on the Cavendish measurement as dozens of similar experiments have been performed since then.
That is how real science works. There is always the need to verify and improve the accuracy of measurements.

Quote from: dutchy
and FP still haven't been updated in 2017 for better ones?
Well, it has!
Quote
The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1925) is a modified version of the Michelson–Morley experiment and the Sagnac-Interferometer. It measured the Sagnac effect due to Earth's rotation.
And modern ring laser gyroscopes are capable of measuring the earth's rotation so presisely that slight wobbles can be detected.

Quote from: dutchy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<< I might tackle the rest when I get on a "real computer" >>
So, dutchy, we do not rely on those ancient measurements. It's just that the history of the Globe, and even the Heliocentric Globe, goes a long way back.

Now, on measurements, what is the basis of the usual claim that the sun and moon are  :P about :P 3,000 miles above the earth.
Especially as Rowbotham made the only actual measurement that I can find and he claims that it is not more than 700 miles high.
There are plenty more oddities with the flat earth when you have explained that.

Thanks in advance!

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #115 on: May 20, 2017, 03:16:04 AM »
Actually it's not a theory it's a hypothesis and a discredited one at that. Theorys have to backed by evidence, sorry to break it to you.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #116 on: May 20, 2017, 04:02:33 AM »
Actually it's not a theory it's a hypothesis and a discredited one at that. Theorys have to backed by evidence, sorry to break it to you.

I'm sorry but it does not even meet the criteria to be rated as a hypothesis, it is no more than a conjecture.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #117 on: May 20, 2017, 05:32:53 AM »
I was thinking in what could be said to a teacher at the university, and in front of the class, that would make they instant realize that something is wrong, without you looking like a crazy guy:

you - "professor, a question"

prof - "what's up, dude?"

you - "you said that on 55 kms of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of 250 meters. If I divide both numbers by 256, it shows that around 215 meters of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of around 1 meter, correct?"

prof - "oh yeah, you understood it right bro."

you - "but professor, this means that long buildings and bridges can't be constructed straight, in a nivelated right line, or else, when moving along it, it soon would become a inclined road, going up."

prof - "?!?"

you - But this don't happen, so all long buildings in the world are always curved and we don't notice? How come there is really long straight bridges crossing big lakes, and they don't become roads that are going up? Or are they curved and our eyes can never detect it? But how come we can easily notice constructions that ARE curved?

prof - "hum... haa..."

class - "yeah prof, how come this happen, explain to us."

prof - "You see, there is this thing about refration... and... but it doesn't make sense... then how come... ??... ...?... !!?!!!! !FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuu"

EDIT: This one was based on the "fact 1", wich was exagerated by my mistake, so, reader, disconsider this one.

Nice strawman you built yorself there. Try it IRL and the results will not be the same.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #118 on: May 20, 2017, 05:45:07 AM »
Forget the elevation of the camera and the angle.


The photographer is right there on the beach itself - the curvature itself measures some 60 meters, do you understand these numbers?


Let us elevate the camera to some 10 meters. Still we can see the perfect details from the other side of the lake, and remember that the visual obstacle measures some 200 meters.

On a spherical earth you must ascend to some 60 meters to even see something from the other side of the lake...and we are right there on the beach in the city of Hamilton.


You think refraction will save you?


http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm# (go to the Apparent altitude of distant object due to terrestrial refraction section)


Put in the numbers: 10 meters, 50 meters (I will give you that, 50 meters, to satisfy your lust for spherical earth theory), and a distance of 60 km: the response? the visual target is behind the horizon - could not be seen, that is.

Did you even read the link you quoted? It says: " The astronomical refraction is depending on the altitude of a celestial body"

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #119 on: May 20, 2017, 05:49:18 AM »
Actually it's not a theory it's a hypothesis and a discredited one at that. Theorys have to backed by evidence, sorry to break it to you.

I'm sorry but it does not even meet the criteria to be rated as a hypothesis, it is no more than a conjecture.

You're right, I apologize.