Flat Earth Evidence.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 24, 2013, 04:16:32 AM

This is a debate section jroa, so I don't expect one liners to be thrown without evidence. That kind of short posts are just unnecessary. You know we want evidence in this forum, and even more in this thread (as the title says).

Please let markjo know about the one liner clause in your new rules.  We have all tried to work with him on this problem, but some RE'ers seem like they just don't want to learn. 

Why are you asking me? I am not even a mod. I don't ask markjo to provide evidence because I know I can dig it myself or I understand what he is implying. If he says for example that ISS exists then I don't ask him to support it. I believe in the same.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 24, 2013, 04:16:32 AM

And BTW, odes is only few days younger than me here.

Then why is he not a militant noob as well?  I mean this in the best way possible.

If you are implying that I am a militant noob then prove it.

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 04:53:38 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on September 24, 2013, 04:16:32 AM

This is a debate section jroa, so I don't expect one liners to be thrown without evidence. That kind of short posts are just unnecessary. You know we want evidence in this forum, and even more in this thread (as the title says).

Please let markjo know about the one liner clause in your new rules.  We have all tried to work with him on this problem, but some RE'ers seem like they just don't want to learn. 

Why are you asking me? I am not even a mod. I don't ask markjo to provide evidence because I know I can dig it myself or I understand what he is implying. If he says for example that ISS exists then I don't ask him to support it. I believe in the same.

Oh, I thought you were rewriting our rules for us, since the rules that you spout off to the noobs are not the same rules that are written in the fora.  I am sorry if I misunderstood.  Please, carry on then.

Look jroa, it's easier to dig RE stuffs like for example the fact that ISS exists rather than FE stuffs. I am even certain that you FEers can use google to find them yourself too if you want. But FE stuffs are not easy to find. The burden of proof is on you.

I just thought that by your tone, you could actually prove something, since you threaten our noobs when they can't.  My mistake.  I guess I am just wrong about everything, then. 

Would someone mind posting actual evidence instead of derailing this? Thanks.

Would someone mind posting actual evidence instead of derailing this? Thanks.

I would very much like to see a good, repeatable, unbiased experiment that yields unambiguous results. Evidence shared is all well and good, but being able to gather it yourself is even better.

So for the purposes of this inquiry it is acceptable to post Zetetically derived evidence?

It does help to know this when preparing a proper response to the OP.

Evidence obtained and presented should thusly satisfy expectations of the requestor.   

I believe that a definitive proof is impossible. The problem is too large to compass by human means. No matter which way it is examined, there are theories and explanations available for apparent phenomena. However, I believe that if the earth were a spinning, whirling sphere, there would be differences that we would observe, compared to how things are. I don't buy the miracle of gravity. I am also confident that selling the people a bill of goods, or a pig in a poke, is business as usual for the image makers. Getting us into wars is notoriously premised on manufactured material. They are just better at it than we realize. Now, maybe some FE theorists believe that the matter can be proven. I don't think I can, but maybe they can.

Any evidence works. Observational, experimental (must be repeatable), etc.

When you are up in the air a kilometer or two, curvature ought to be evident. It isn't. So, the earth is flat. I enjoy flying, because it gives me a chance to verify that the earth is indeed flat.

When you are up in the air a kilometer or two, curvature ought to be evident. It isn't. So, the earth is flat. I enjoy flying, because it gives me a chance to verify that the earth is indeed flat.

One or two kilometers is nowhere near high enough to see a curve.

Quote from: odes on September 24, 2013, 06:25:30 PM

When you are up in the air a kilometer or two, curvature ought to be evident. It isn't. So, the earth is flat. I enjoy flying, because it gives me a chance to verify that the earth is indeed flat.

One or two kilometers is nowhere near high enough to see a curve.

To add to this: The earth is actually very huge. Therefore you can't see the curve until you can see a huge amount of the earth.

...I believe that if the earth were a spinning, whirling sphere, there would be differences that we would observe, compared to how things are.

If you sit down and do the maths, you can see why the RE model fits so well, and why this belief of yours is incorrect.

When you are up in the air a kilometer or two, curvature ought to be evident. It isn't. So, the earth is flat. I enjoy flying, because it gives me a chance to verify that the earth is indeed flat.

Again, you need to do the maths, and bear in mind that just observing a curved horizon is inconclusive. When flying, you should be able to see that the higher you go, the further you can see, which is actually quite conclusive (particularly on a clear day, when the horizon is clearly defined and not obscured by haze).

Flying near the ocean is a good one, especially if there are offshore oil rigs. I have done this, and watching an oil rig "roll" over the horizon as you climb is pretty clearly only possible on a (roughly) spherical earth. To clarify what I mean by "roll over the horizon", the rig goes from obscured, to sitting on the horizon line, to well below the horizon line, with no significant change in horizontal distance (if anything, a slight increase), only change in altitude.

---

EDIT: sorry, didn't intend to sidetrack there, better try to stay on topic...

Quote from: REphoenix on September 24, 2013, 03:19:48 PM

Would someone mind posting actual evidence instead of derailing this? Thanks.

I would very much like to see a good, repeatable, unbiased experiment that yields unambiguous results. Evidence shared is all well and good, but being able to gather it yourself is even better.

Any evidence works. Observational, experimental (must be repeatable), etc.

When you are up in the air a kilometer or two, curvature ought to be evident. It isn't. So, the earth is flat. I enjoy flying, because it gives me a chance to verify that the earth is indeed flat.

Flying one kilometer above a round earth is equivalent to flying 0.02 millimeter above a basketball. You can't see curvature yet.

Goddamnit,im starting to have my own doubts about the earths shape. Im gonna try and get some conclusive proof of the earths sphericity. Any ideas?  Maybe a weather balloon? I ve also got these links live from the ISS,http://spacestationlive.nasa.gov/timeline/.Thanks!

Goddamnit,im starting to have my own doubts about the earths shape. Im gonna try and get some conclusive proof of the earths sphericity. Any ideas?  Maybe a weather balloon? I ve also got these links live from the ISS,http://spacestationlive.nasa.gov/timeline/.Thanks!

What is giving you doubts?

What these people say is retarded and i get that, but i ve never really proven earths sphericity and there are many factors that ought to be taken into account if we were to do the experiments on our own. I want to get my ownunedited proof of the earths sphericity. Not launching a rocket into space (that would be expensive) but something that would convince these lunatics that the earth is a sphere and not flat. Thats it. Im not retarded.

The statement "perform the maths" presents an utter fallacy to great to behold.  Please note, if friction causes all objects to rotate with the earth at 1000 mph, then an airplane which nullifies the forces of gravity should travel much more speedily from east to west than west to east.  Do not mention minor speed increases from supposed jet streams.  Do not mention false little nuances such as changing weather patterns.  I am talking about how there should be gains of hundreds of MPH here.  So thusly, no round earth rotation exists.  Round earth rotation presents only an utter fallacy.

Gravity poses only a blatant lie which must be defeated and quashed.  You perform the math here.  You cannot explain your way out of the above scenario

The statement "perform the maths" presents an utter fallacy to great to behold.  Please note, if friction causes all objects to rotate with the earth at 1000 mph, then an airplane which nullifies the forces of gravity should travel much more speedily from east to west than west to east.  Do not mention minor speed increases from supposed jet streams.  Do not mention false little nuances such as changing weather patterns.  I am talking about how there should be gains of hundreds of MPH here.  So thusly, no round earth rotation exists.  Round earth rotation presents only an utter fallacy.

Gravity poses only a blatant lie which must be defeated and quashed.  You perform the math here.  You cannot explain your way out of the above scenario

Why would there be huge changes in the plane's speed? It moves relative to the air mass, and the air mass barely moves relative to the surface of the earth. There needs to be some force acting on the plane to change it's speed in the way you say, but where is this force coming from? What would apply this force?

Inertia and relativity are words that some flat earthers desperately need to desperately look up and attempt to understand.

This situation poses a lot of ludicrous statements.  No force needs to act on the plane.  If the earth really rotated, when the plane takes off the earth would turn under the plane as it flies.  It does not do that.  Hence, the earth does not rotate.  Gravity does not act on the plane.  It possesses lift.  That being the case, if one does not see that the earth turns under the plane at 1000 mph, then no rotation can exist.  That stands as the only needed math.

The plane cannot be called an extension of air.  Neither can the plane be influenced by gravity.  The modern understanding of gravity is that it pulls straight down to the center of the planet, not in a circle.  The plane cannot move forward and move backward with the rotation of the earth at same moment.  That situation never occurs.  No friction holds down the plane.

Do not give an example of a man who can walk around on an airplane and say its the same concept with the relationship between the plane and the earth.  The man on the plane has contact with the plane's inner surfaces.  Friction keeps that man traveling at the same speed.  He was accelerated to the plane's speed while in the chair.  The earth's rotation, however, should have no influence on the plane because it is above ground.

Inertia and relativity are words that some flat earthers desperately need to desperately look up and attempt to understand.

There should be no inertia with that plane.  The plane lifts off the ground and so inertia should be nullified.  You are just ignoring the obvious.  Once there is no more ground contact, inertia cannot exist.  Once the plane nullifies gravity by lifting off, gravity should have no more effect on the moving object.  Lift = gravity does not exist on the object.  Hence, the earth never turns freely under the plane, because decreased travel times from east to west do not occur.

Inertia cannot exist if the object does not have contact with the ground.  No friction = inertia does not mean jack.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 26, 2013, 04:16:05 PM

Inertia and relativity are words that some flat earthers desperately need to desperately look up and attempt to understand.

There should be no inertia with that plane.  The plane lifts off the ground and so inertia should be nullified.  You are just ignoring the obvious.  Once there is no more ground contact, inertia cannot exist.  Once the plane nullifies gravity by lifting off, gravity should have no more effect on the moving object.  Lift = gravity does not exist on the object.  Hence, the earth never turns freely under the plane, because decreased travel times from east to west do not occur.

Inertia cannot exist if the object does not have contact with the ground.  No friction = inertia does not mean jack.

My comment about inertia and relativity had to do with the earth itself. As far as atmosphere above the earth (which is moving with the earth) I suggest you learn about Bernoulli's Principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli's_principle

I'll give you an example of a baseball pitcher and catcher on the back of a moving semi truck. There are two men with radar guns calculating the speed of the throw's that pitcher pitches. One radar man is on the truck with them while the other is pointing the radar at the baseball from the ground outside of the truck. The truck is moving at 70mph but on the truck itself the man is throwing a pitch at a speed of 80 mph relative to the truck. The radar man on the truck will calculate a speed of 80 mph while the radar man outside of the truck observing the moving truck will calculate the ball to go about 150 mph. This is relativity very simply.

A plane doesn't have to worry about matching the earths speed because as it takes off its speed is already that of the moving earth.

Bernoulli's principle of lift means nothing to me.  That principle of how an airplane flies poses no complex task to understand.  What I speak of stands only in the fact where a flying plane exists independent of gravity period dot.  Gravity does not act on the plane, neither does it get pulled in any direction

In addition,

IF the earth really rotated 1000 mph, the centrifugal forces at the equator would be twice as great than at the poles.  This fact results in objects weighing much less at the equator.  This scenario never gets seen.

I'll give you an example of a baseball pitcher and catcher on the back of a moving semi truck. There are two men with radar guns calculating the speed of the throw's that pitcher pitches. One radar man is on the truck with them while the other is pointing the radar at the baseball from the ground outside of the truck. The truck is moving at 70mph but on the truck itself the man is throwing a pitch at a speed of 80 mph relative to the truck. The radar man on the truck will calculate a speed of 80 mph while the radar man outside of the truck observing the moving truck will calculate the ball to go about 150 mph. This is relativity very simply.

A plane doesn't have to worry about matching the earths speed because as it takes off its speed is already that of the moving earth.

That example fails to explain anything.  A plane stays up in the air for hours at a time.  Some planes stay for 24 hours in the air.  A pitch only comes for a split second.  The plane never registers any type of increasing speed traveling from one direction to another.  This point represents the only point I possess.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 26, 2013, 04:32:35 PM

I'll give you an example of a baseball pitcher and catcher on the back of a moving semi truck. There are two men with radar guns calculating the speed of the throw's that pitcher pitches. One radar man is on the truck with them while the other is pointing the radar at the baseball from the ground outside of the truck. The truck is moving at 70mph but on the truck itself the man is throwing a pitch at a speed of 80 mph relative to the truck. The radar man on the truck will calculate a speed of 80 mph while the radar man outside of the truck observing the moving truck will calculate the ball to go about 150 mph. This is relativity very simply.

A plane doesn't have to worry about matching the earths speed because as it takes off its speed is already that of the moving earth.

That example fails to explain anything.  A plane stays up in the air for hours at a time.  Some planes stay for 24 hours in the air.  A pitch only comes for a split second.  The plane never registers any type of increasing speed traveling from one direction to another.  This point represents the only point I possess.

You are extremely confused. I'm sorry.

You represent the only deluded individual.  My point received expression at a very simple, understandable level.  Planes which stay up in the air for hours at a time cancel out any form of inertia.  A simple pitch only presents a piss poor example.  Do not back down so quick without looking at all the information.  The inertia would not last that long, if there was any form of rotation.  A plane travels against the direction of supposed rotation, and inertia would be cancelled out.  Relativity would also receive cancellation.  You would still see a shortened arrival time.  You do not though.  The earth is flat and geocentricity is god

Your entire argument is just based on the fact that you don't properly understand what you are talking about.