# .....

• 118 Replies
• 20679 Views
?

#### lolzy

• 85
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #90 on: March 24, 2013, 06:39:43 PM »
I'll try again.
My model is a model of what "your" model should actually be doing and we both know, if that was the case then it wouldn't have the seasons.
I'll try again.
Our model explains seasons. Your model does not. There is no reason to take a working model and change it into a non working model.
Quote
You model has been made to fit the seasons in by manipulation of the diagram to make it look like it should be moving around the sun like it shows but in reality, the model should not show that and my model shows what should really happen, in the diagram only not in the real world.
There is no manipulation. Observations on earth match the our model. Observations on earth do not match your model. So you see, our model is correct. There is no reason for you to say our model should be like your model and then say it's wrong.

He doesn't understand logical fallacies, see my exchange with him a couple pages back. Lol you guys are wasting your time

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #91 on: March 25, 2013, 05:23:19 AM »
Not to mention that his model defies physics.

It does not defy physics, it just does not describe the observed reality on Earth. But the moon is tidally locked, as are many other moons.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Sculder

• 113
• Me and Mully
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #92 on: March 25, 2013, 05:48:21 AM »
If you place a globe on a table and move around it, the axis of the globe will be static in relation to the table, but it's tilt will change in relation to you. As you move around the globe you will be able to see both "poles". What is this exercise meant to prove?
You are missing the point entirely.
What is this exercise of placing a globe on a table and going around it - that you have suggested - meant to prove?
I didn't say go around the globe, it just appeared that I said go around the globe.
"Try it yourself with a globe on a table and go around it" - if you didn't mean what you appear to have said, what exactly did you mean by this?
Look at my diagram and follow it using a globe and something for a sun, maybe a table lamp without the shade, now walk around the table holding the globe as it is on a tilt. You can rotate it if you want but this isn't the exercise.
So hold the globe on a tilt in front of you, meaning the globe held to your chest, now side step around the (hopefully round) table, all the way around and tell me if the bottom of that globe shows itself to the lamp or if it keeps looking at your belly button.
That's more like it. I understand what you're saying about side-stepping; if I side step, with the globe in front of me, around the table, the top will always be facing the light, and the bottom wont. I agree. However that's not the only way that globe can move around the table (with you always facing the table, that is).

Now you try it this way. You've got a round table with a light source in the middle, right? Same premise as before. Hold the globe in front of you without moving it. Now move around the table in such a way that you're always looking in the same direction; try always facing towards the same wall, for example, as this will help you be sure you're not changing the direction you're facing while you move around the round table.

This way I can assure that you will reach a position where the top of the globe is facing away from the light, and the bottom towards it. If you move 180 degrees from that position, you'll reach a point where the top of the globe is facing towards the table with the light, and the bottom away from it. There will also be two points where both "poles" (the place where the metal axle sticks out of the globe) will be lit; basically on the edge between the light side, and the dark side of the globe.
Oh I agree but it changes the angle of the globe, is what I'm saying.

It does, but the tilt of the globe is not measured according to its tilt from the sun. It is measured as the tilt of the equatorial plane from the plane of its orbit.
We got there in the end. And this is where the magical shoehorned fits come into play.

Judging from this last reply, I don't think he understands angular momentum.
I don't want to believe.

?

#### A Doubter

• 310
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #93 on: March 25, 2013, 06:25:29 AM »
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

?

#### A Doubter

• 310
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #94 on: March 25, 2013, 06:29:27 AM »

Angular Momentum

Objects executing motion around a point possess a quantity called angular momentum. This is an important physical quantity because all experimental evidence indicates that angular momentum is rigorously conserved in our Universe: it can be transferred, but it cannot be created or destroyed. For the simple case of a small mass executing uniform circular motion around a much larger mass (so that we can neglect the effect of the center of mass) the amount of angular momentum takes a simple form. As the adjacent figure illustrates the magnitude of the angular momentum in this case is L = mvr, where L is the angular momentum, m is the mass of the small object, v is the magnitude of its velocity, and r is the separation between the objects.

Ice Skaters and Angular Momentum
This formula indicates one important physical consequence of angular momentum: because the above formula can be rearranged to give v = L/(mr) and L is a constant for an isolated system, the velocity v and the separation r are inversely correlated. Thus, conservation of angular momentum demands that a decrease in the separation r be accompanied by an increase in the velocity v, and vice versa. This important concept carries over to more complicated systems: generally, for rotating bodies, if their radii decrease they must spin faster in order to conserve angular momentum. This concept is familiar intuitively to the ice skater who spins faster when the arms are drawn in, and slower when the arms are extended; although most ice skaters don't think about it explictly, this method of spin control is nothing but an invocation of the law of angular momentum conservation.

Link inserted as I don't know how to paste it the image here.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/angmom.html
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

?

#### A Doubter

• 310
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #95 on: March 25, 2013, 06:33:36 AM »
That's funny; it worked for me.

The second post of mine was the simplest one I could find.  I hope that it helps.
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

?

#### A Doubter

• 310
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #96 on: March 25, 2013, 06:35:57 AM »
I thought you'd try something like that.  Doesn't make it any less disappointing though.
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

?

#### Sculder

• 113
• Me and Mully
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #97 on: March 25, 2013, 06:56:49 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
I don't want to believe.

?

#### A Doubter

• 310
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #98 on: March 25, 2013, 06:59:37 AM »
You know, you're quite right.

It is entirely magical.  I'm surprised you waste your time trying to see if others can reduce it to some form of rationality, instead of sitting back with a cup of tea and basking in the majesty of it all.

The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

?

#### A Doubter

• 310
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #99 on: March 25, 2013, 07:26:43 AM »
You might regard angular momentum as equivalent to the force generated by your circular reasoning that keeps you always looking inwards, never outwards.
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #100 on: March 25, 2013, 07:42:48 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.

Thats not a should question, that is a situation where it was the way it turned out.  If you knew all of the pre-existing conditions that lead to the Earth being in orbit around the sun you could answer that question meaningfully. How much of the information provided did you read?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### A Doubter

• 310
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #101 on: March 25, 2013, 07:51:43 AM »
He's not going to answer a direct question.

He's going to change the subject until he's back on what he thinks of as firmer ground.

The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

?

#### Sculder

• 113
• Me and Mully
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #102 on: March 25, 2013, 07:53:53 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.

The short answer is: it's not a matter of why it should be tilted, because it is tilted; the tilt can easily be measured from the ground and you can do it yourself around June 21st (or December 21st, the summer solstice, depending on where you live).

The slightly longer answer is: I'm not gonna keep enabling you. You can find your own answers in books or on the Internet. You want an answer to every question that crops up in your head, you go look it up for yourself; or you can wait for someone else that feels the need to answer every question you have.
I don't want to believe.

#### Salviati

• 147
• What is my Personal Text?
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #103 on: March 25, 2013, 08:00:51 AM »
Not to mention that his model defies physics.

It does not defy physics, it just does not describe the observed reality on Earth. But the moon is tidally locked, as are many other moons.
It definitely defies physics. Nowhere in the universe a rotating body, be it a planet or a huge star, can change the orientation of the axis without the intervention of an external force (that should be really huge). This is an elementary concept of physics verified both at experimental level and at theoretical level.

And now go and explain this to scepti. Good luck.
Q: Why do you think the Earth is round?
A: Look out the window!

#### mathsman

• 487
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #104 on: March 25, 2013, 08:21:27 AM »
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.
Why is the earth flat? Just explain that.

?

#### Sculder

• 113
• Me and Mully
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #105 on: March 25, 2013, 08:23:11 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.

The short answer is: it's not a matter of why it should be tilted, because it is tilted; the tilt can easily be measured from the ground and you can do it yourself around June 21st (or December 21st, the summer solstice, depending on where you live).

The slightly longer answer is: I'm not gonna keep enabling you. You can find your own answers in books or on the Internet. You want an answer to every question that crops up in your head, you go look it up for yourself; or you can wait for someone else that feels the need to answer every question you have.
That's fine. You cannot explain it legitimately because it's a whole load of magic and has no reason whatsoever to be spinning at a 23.5 degree angle.
A nice animation explains it perfectly though, because animations can be made to fit anything in to fit anything.

There's a difference between I can't explain it and I won't explain it. And even if I can't explain it, it doesn't mean someone else, more intelligent than me and/or with a superior understanding of astrophysics, can't do it.

The problem is, I don't see any reason to further explain things to you. You're having enough trouble as it is coming to terms with a concept like angular momentum, something that (where I live and when I was in school) was introduced in high school physics. I think I should just go back to my (limited) understanding of physics in particular and of science in general, and I should leave you to yours.

I don't want to condescend you, but I simply won't continue enabling a discussion with someone whose default position is that if I don't understand it, it must be magic/fake.
I don't want to believe.

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #106 on: March 25, 2013, 08:34:36 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.

The short answer is: it's not a matter of why it should be tilted, because it is tilted; the tilt can easily be measured from the ground and you can do it yourself around June 21st (or December 21st, the summer solstice, depending on where you live).

The slightly longer answer is: I'm not gonna keep enabling you. You can find your own answers in books or on the Internet. You want an answer to every question that crops up in your head, you go look it up for yourself; or you can wait for someone else that feels the need to answer every question you have.
That's fine. You cannot explain it legitimately because it's a whole load of magic and has no reason whatsoever to be spinning at a 23.5 degree angle.
A nice animation explains it perfectly though, because animations can be made to fit anything in to fit anything.

You do not understand why I cannot give an explanation.  Its a perfectly logical reason, plain for anyone to appreciate.  I would be a liar if I tried to give some explanation.  There is no meaningful answer to "Why should the Earth be on a 23.5 degree axis?" except, "It had to end in some orientation, and this is the one that happened."

Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42528
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #107 on: March 25, 2013, 09:08:20 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.
To be honest, scientists aren't quite sure why.  It's just the way that the earth formed.  It's just as mysterious as the reason why the flat earth sun should expand and contract its orbit between 23.5 degrees north and south latitude.  Short answer is (for now, at least), it just does.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

#### Tausami

• Flat Earth Editor
• 6767
• Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #108 on: March 25, 2013, 09:12:07 AM »
I was of the impression that the theory was that the Earth is actually two planets that collided together, and the moon is made of the debris from that collision. When the planets collided the axis of the resultant planet was off by a few degrees.

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #109 on: March 25, 2013, 09:24:42 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.
To be honest, scientists aren't quite sure why.  It's just the way that the earth formed.  It's just as mysterious as the reason why the flat earth sun should expand and contract its orbit between 23.5 degrees north and south latitude.  Short answer is (for now, at least), it just does.
Well at least that's an honest answer.  Ok I'll accept that... You obviously have to accept that the flat earth model is equally as legitimate right?

The only reason scientists aren't sure is because they have none of the data preceding the development of the Earth's axis. Why does this make FET just as legitimate?  It cannot explain many phenomena that RET explains easily.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Sculder

• 113
• Me and Mully
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #110 on: March 25, 2013, 09:31:24 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.
To be honest, scientists aren't quite sure why.  It's just the way that the earth formed.  It's just as mysterious as the reason why the flat earth sun should expand and contract its orbit between 23.5 degrees north and south latitude.  Short answer is (for now, at least), it just does.

There are planetary formation models which explain how the Earth has formed, but as they rely on gravity - and I understand that in FE gravity either doesn't exist or it exists in a greatly diminished formed than what is accepted by science - there's no reason to believe a FE theorist would agree with any such model. You'd have to go back to explaining... the gravity of the situation.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 09:32:56 AM by Sculder »
I don't want to believe.

?

#### Sculder

• 113
• Me and Mully
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #111 on: March 25, 2013, 09:35:23 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.
To be honest, scientists aren't quite sure why.  It's just the way that the earth formed.  It's just as mysterious as the reason why the flat earth sun should expand and contract its orbit between 23.5 degrees north and south latitude.  Short answer is (for now, at least), it just does.
Well at least that's an honest answer.  Ok I'll accept that... You obviously have to accept that the flat earth model is equally as legitimate right?

The only reason scientists aren't sure is because they have none of the data preceding the development of the Earth's axis. Why does this make FET just as legitimate?  It cannot explain many phenomena that RET explains easily.
RET explains everything because the RET is backed up by the mass of "official" scientists from as far back as it goes and for each problem the RET gave, it was tweaked a little here and there, to fit everything, with other planets tweaked to fit the RET.
If the flat earth had the backing of similar masses and allowed to be officially tested, I'd bet every last question could be answered in full.

I'll take that bet. Now we just have to wait for the Flat Earth Society to push itself into the mainstream of science.
I don't want to believe.

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #112 on: March 25, 2013, 09:38:22 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.
To be honest, scientists aren't quite sure why.  It's just the way that the earth formed.  It's just as mysterious as the reason why the flat earth sun should expand and contract its orbit between 23.5 degrees north and south latitude.  Short answer is (for now, at least), it just does.
Well at least that's an honest answer.  Ok I'll accept that... You obviously have to accept that the flat earth model is equally as legitimate right?

The only reason scientists aren't sure is because they have none of the data preceding the development of the Earth's axis. Why does this make FET just as legitimate?  It cannot explain many phenomena that RET explains easily.
RET explains everything because the RET is backed up by the mass of "official" scientists from as far back as it goes and for each problem the RET gave, it was tweaked a little here and there, to fit everything, with other planets tweaked to fit the RET.
If the flat earth had the backing of similar masses and allowed to be officially tested, I'd bet every last question could be answered in full.

This is the Genetic Fallacy. You cannot attack the substance of why the Earth is thought to be round so you instead attack the sources. Then you went on to create a Straw Man argument. The number of scientists in FETs past has no bearing on the validity of RET. in fact the conditions you describe may serve RET. Who knows?  Who cares?  Deal with the information Sceptimatic.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Sculder

• 113
• Me and Mully
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #113 on: March 25, 2013, 09:48:08 AM »
A lecture on #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angular Momentum and Torque. I don't expect someone with little to no notions of Physics to understand what's going on; it is after all, a university course from MIT. It is not however magic.

This #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other video, on the other hand, is just meant to show some more magic. I mean some more physics that doesn't fit in with basic "intuition".
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.
To be honest, scientists aren't quite sure why.  It's just the way that the earth formed.  It's just as mysterious as the reason why the flat earth sun should expand and contract its orbit between 23.5 degrees north and south latitude.  Short answer is (for now, at least), it just does.
Well at least that's an honest answer.  Ok I'll accept that... You obviously have to accept that the flat earth model is equally as legitimate right?

The only reason scientists aren't sure is because they have none of the data preceding the development of the Earth's axis. Why does this make FET just as legitimate?  It cannot explain many phenomena that RET explains easily.
RET explains everything because the RET is backed up by the mass of "official" scientists from as far back as it goes and for each problem the RET gave, it was tweaked a little here and there, to fit everything, with other planets tweaked to fit the RET.
If the flat earth had the backing of similar masses and allowed to be officially tested, I'd bet every last question could be answered in full.

I'll take that bet. Now we just have to wait for the Flat Earth Society to push itself into the mainstream of science.
It's not going to happen and you know that as well as everyone. It won't be allowed to happen.

I do not believe that notion in the slightest. I believe in the power of human reasoning. I believe in man's power to challenge the boundaries of understanding. And, above all else, I believe that in science the truth will always emerge victorious no matter how long it takes and how difficult the road is.

That's why I believe that if Flat-Earth theory is correct, it will emerge victorious. If Flat-Earth theory is correct, I'm sure the great scientific minds of humanity will eventually see through the lies of the Round-Earth theory. If Flat-Earth theory is correct, science will prove it correct. Of this I am certain.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 09:51:28 AM by Sculder »
I don't want to believe.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42528
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #114 on: March 25, 2013, 10:11:01 AM »
RET explains everything because the RET is backed up by the mass of "official" scientists from as far back as it goes and for each problem the RET gave, it was tweaked a little here and there, to fit everything, with other planets tweaked to fit the RET.

Yes, RET is tweaked every so often to better fit observations.  Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing?  You do understand that the purpose of RET is to describe the earth (and by extension, the rest of the universe) as we perceive it, don't you?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### A Doubter

• 310
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #115 on: March 25, 2013, 10:12:53 AM »

The only reason scientists aren't sure is because they have none of the data preceding the development of the Earth's axis. Why does this make FET just as legitimate?  It cannot explain many phenomena that RET explains easily.
[/quote]
RET explains everything because the RET is backed up by the mass of "official" scientists from as far back as it goes and for each problem the RET gave, it was tweaked a little here and there, to fit everything, with other planets tweaked to fit the RET.
If the flat earth had the backing of similar masses and allowed to be officially tested, I'd bet every last question could be answered in full.

[/quote]

This is par for the course.  If anyone suggests an affordable, easy to do experiment, the thread gets derailed and no-one wants to do it; for example:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57996.0.html#.UVCFX1eEtEI

You never get anywhere.
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42528
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #116 on: March 25, 2013, 10:58:26 AM »
It's just got to a stage where they have basically covered everything with impossibilities that defies logic but is so clever that the scientific apprentices of any era, accept it. They accept it, because it's easier to do so, than to dismiss it and find themselves black balled from the world of science as nothing more than a argumentative instigator of trouble.

Not at all, there are still plenty of mysteries for RE scientists to solve.  In fact, the more RE scientists learn, the more mysteries they find.  It's just that the shape of the earth isn't one of them.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 11:01:12 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

#### mathsman

• 487
##### Re: I need some clarification.
« Reply #117 on: March 26, 2013, 01:08:46 AM »
Why should the earth tilt on a 23.5 degree angle, just explain that.
Why is the earth flat? Just explain that.

No explanation?

• 487