REs Please Explain

  You can't use the Earth as an example when that is the very thing in question.

Of course I can.  If the 2 of us were sat on an elephant and you claimed elephants didn't exist, are you saying I couldn't use the one we were sat on as an example?

Anyway, every other planet we have seen is spherical.  Can you show me a single flat planet in the solar system?

  You people need to face it, you have no proof other than your make believe videos and photos of the Earth from the ISS and moon.

Yeah, apart from an entire model that works:

• Motion of the stars
• Sunrise and sunset
• The seasons
• The horizon
• Sinking ship effect
• World maps that work exactly for international travel
• 3000 satellites orbiting the planet
• A model of the solar system that works
• Around 500 people, from 38 different countries, who have been into space - not a single one reporting a flat earth
• 10 nations who have launch capability - none of which who have reported their surprise at the flatness of the planet
• And yeah, since you mention it - thousands of hours of video and millions of images captured from space, showing a spherical earth.  None of which you have falsified

This is just off the top of my head - there is lots, lots more. 

You have:

• A shonky, 200 year old experiment carried out by a snake oil salesman

Inverted Hollow Earth theory can explain all of those things above with amazing accuracy actually much better accuracy then a Round Solid Earth model does. For example a Inverted Hollow Earth can explain Horizons with no complex explanations and an Inverted Hollow Earth can also explain the flow of the Planets with no extra explanations as the Torus (Torahs) is Real.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
 

Inverted Hollow Earth theory can explain all of those things above with amazing accuracy actually much better accuracy then a Round Solid Earth model does.

Firstly, you use a common flat earth misnomer.  There is no round earth "model".  In the context of your use of the word, a model is a scaled solid, or computer-generated representation of something that as yet does not exist in real time, and is a proposition for its expected appearance and/or mechanism of operation.

Therefore we don't need a "model" of our planet, as it already exists, and we know what it looks like, its physical dimensions, and its mechanism of actions.

However, as yet we have no working model of a proposed flat earth.  Which prompts me to ask why it is that—on this site alone—there is no agreement as to what form this flat earth model would take?  How can it be that I've seen numerous, different propositions for a flat earth model?  Why is there no consensus amongst flat earth proponents?

And lastly; why is it that billions of people worldwide agree totally with the current description of our spherical planet, and yet only a few hundred people propose some sort of flat earth?
 
Is it easier to fool 6,000,000,000 people, or 600 people?
 
 

Geoff, now that is a fine question. Even the average 3rd Grader (@ least that's when I started learning it) understands the basics of things: There are 9 (8 now) planets in the Solar System, of which Earth is 3rd. All are round, circling a round Sun. Earth is the only one supporting life. Ours is 1 of many systems in a galaxy, which is 1 of many in a universe. 3rd Graders everywhere know this. On the flip side, FET can't yet agree on the map it uses of the Earth, let alone anything else.

On the flip side, FET can't yet agree on the map it uses of the Earth, let alone anything else.

The lack of a consensus map of the proposed flat earth is what destroys the legitimacy of the flat earth argument in one fell swoop, as far as I'm concerned.

The flat earthers refute the round earth "model" whilst at the same time having no flat earth model to dispute it with.  They're saying basically that a round earth does not exist, but we can't show you what does exist.  It's a ludicrous (non) argument.
 

Geoff, & both the unipolar & bipolar maps present problems for navigation by ship or plane. On the bipolar map, you can't circumnavigate @ the Equator in a plane, when you can in reality. On the unipolar map, travel South of the Equator gets all messed up in terms of time & distance.

So, when a child or an adult asks me what shape the Earth is, my answer is, I do not know.

If that's what you're truly telling your children, then you're doing them a major disservice by hindering their educational growth.  Why are you not telling them that the earth is flat?  Do you lack the courage of your own convictions?
 

So, when a child or an adult asks me what shape the Earth is, my answer is, I do not know.   It is much, much bigger than we are as humans.  What I do know is what I experience here on Earth and in an airplane in our atmosphere.  And that is, the Earth is flat.  THAT, I know is true.

Yes, much bigger. Normal commercial flights don't show the curvature for sure. It was already visible from a Concorde (and, although it was expensive while lasted, it wasn't NASA only, so quite a few ordinary, although not actually poor people had the chance to see it with their own eyes). It becomes absolutely apparent and something you can't deny or dismiss at even higher altitudes.

If that's what you're truly telling your children, then you're doing them a major disservice by hindering their educational growth.  Why are you not telling them that the earth is flat?  Do you lack the courage of your own convictions?

No one should be telling them anything they do not know for a fact.  You say satellite photos prove the Earth is a sphere.  A photo of a ghost isn't proof that ghosts exist.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 03, 2014, 08:23:26 AM

If that's what you're truly telling your children, then you're doing them a major disservice by hindering their educational growth.  Why are you not telling them that the earth is flat?  Do you lack the courage of your own convictions?

No one should be telling them anything they do not know for a fact.  You say satellite photos prove the Earth is a sphere.  A photo of a ghost isn't proof that ghosts exist.

So pictures from space, the horizon and satellite tv, what are they?

Jimmy,
You are missing the point.  A ball spinning with a colored gas, inside a vacuum will do just fine.

A ball in a vacuum small enough to fit in a lab would not have enough mass to generate enough gravity to attract the gas.  But I'm sure that you already know this.

Thank you Markjo for clarifying that.  Now, can everyone understand why some people have trouble believing that's possible?

No, I cannot.  There is an overwhelming body of evidence that we sit on a rotating globe.  There is almost none to the contrary.

It cannot be recreated in a lab.

Is this your definition of what is possible?  My wife has never been recreated in a lab, yet she definitely exists.

Thank you Markjo for clarifying that.  Now, can everyone understand why some people have trouble believing that's possible?  It cannot be recreated in a lab.

Are you suggesting that if a phenomenon can't be recreated in a lab, then it can't happen in nature? 

Pretty much.  Isn't that what scientists claim?

You say satellite photos prove the Earth is a sphere.  A photo of a ghost isn't proof that ghosts exist.

I'm not sure whether or not you're being deliberately disingenuous here or not?

As of this date, nobody on the planet is in possession of any accredited photographic images of ghosts.  Why?  Obviously because ghosts don't exist.  Or do you believe they do?

Anyway... could you please post some photographic images that show the earth to be a flat plane?  They don't necessarily have to be genuine, (as you claim all RE images showing a curved horizon are bogus, or satellite images of the earth from space are simply CGIs).  I'd simply be interested in seeing some alternative imagery that helps support the FE model.
 

Pretty much.  Isn't that what scientists claim?

Of course it isn't - what a ridiculous thing to suggest.  Have as anyone ever recreated you in a lab?  No?  Do you not exist then?

Most things have never been created in a lab - we are not gods.

FLAT.  Oh and tell me that sun doesn't look pretty darn close!
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on February 04, 2014, 06:45:39 AM

Pretty much.  Isn't that what scientists claim?

Of course it isn't - what a ridiculous thing to suggest.  Have as anyone ever recreated you in a lab?  No?  Do you not exist then?
Most things have never been created in a lab - we are not gods.

Humans HAVE been created in labs.  And humans most certainly DO act like gods!  We have the power to create unimaginable (actually if you can imagine it, you can create it...so imaginable) things and the power to destroy.

FLAT.  Oh and tell me that sun doesn't look pretty darn close!
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Based on what?

Given that there's absolutely no frame of reference it's impossible to tell how far away or big the sun is.

FLAT.  Oh and tell me that sun doesn't look pretty darn close!

It doesn't look any closer than 149,600,000 km to me.

The Horizon simply would not exist on a round nor flat Earth unless Earth was concaved at 45 degrees. Since we know we can fly around the entire Earth it makes sense that we are inside basically an egg. (Not even a ball as the Northern part of Earth is measurably more wide then the Southern part)

The Horizon simply would not exist on a round nor flat Earth unless Earth was concaved at 45 degrees. Since we know we can fly around the entire Earth it makes sense that we are inside basically an egg. (Not even a ball as the Northern part of Earth is measurably more wide then the Southern part)

Concaved at 45 degrees. Please explain.  Diagrams have already been posted how the horizon exists.

Quote from: Sculelos on February 04, 2014, 09:56:41 AM

The Horizon simply would not exist on a round nor flat Earth unless Earth was concaved at 45 degrees. Since we know we can fly around the entire Earth it makes sense that we are inside basically an egg. (Not even a ball as the Northern part of Earth is measurably more wide then the Southern part)

Concaved at 45 degrees. Please explain.  Diagrams have already been posted how the horizon exists.

As it sounds, light crosses at 45 degrees amplifying distance with which even telescopes cannot resolve as telescopes will not change the properties of light however telescopes can still partially resolve things that have not transitioned completely beyond the optical light band in relation to you.

I'm not sure how conventional science explains horizon always being level with eyesight even at 20,000 Miles of Altitude. If Earth was only 8,000 Miles across then surely at 20,000 miles there is no possible way on a convex Earth that we would still see a horizon is there not? (And Even at 100,000 Miles we still see the Horizon like this video demonstrates)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc

Humans HAVE been created in labs. 

*sigh*  In vitro fertilization is not "creating a human".  It's just bringing egg and sperm together in lab so that nature can do its thing.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 04, 2014, 10:59:49 AM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 04, 2014, 09:56:41 AM

The Horizon simply would not exist on a round nor flat Earth unless Earth was concaved at 45 degrees. Since we know we can fly around the entire Earth it makes sense that we are inside basically an egg. (Not even a ball as the Northern part of Earth is measurably more wide then the Southern part)

Concaved at 45 degrees. Please explain.  Diagrams have already been posted how the horizon exists.

As it sounds, light crosses at 45 degrees amplifying distance with which even telescopes cannot resolve as telescopes will not change the properties of light however telescopes can still partially resolve things that have not transitioned completely beyond the optical light band in relation to you.

I'm not sure how conventional science explains horizon always being level with eyesight even at 20,000 Miles of Altitude. If Earth was only 8,000 Miles across then surely at 20,000 miles there is no possible way on a convex Earth that we would still see a horizon is there not? (And Even at 100,000 Miles we still see the Horizon like this video demonstrates)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc

Light crosses what at 45 degrees?

Amplifying distance?

'transitioned completely beyond the optical light band in relation to you'  Please explain.

Nobody says the horizon is level with eyesight, if you mean at 90 degrees to the vertical axis of the observer.

So why do we not see the earth curve upwards?

Quote from: Sculelos on February 04, 2014, 11:21:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 04, 2014, 10:59:49 AM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 04, 2014, 09:56:41 AM

The Horizon simply would not exist on a round nor flat Earth unless Earth was concaved at 45 degrees. Since we know we can fly around the entire Earth it makes sense that we are inside basically an egg. (Not even a ball as the Northern part of Earth is measurably more wide then the Southern part)

Concaved at 45 degrees. Please explain.  Diagrams have already been posted how the horizon exists.

As it sounds, light crosses at 45 degrees amplifying distance with which even telescopes cannot resolve as telescopes will not change the properties of light however telescopes can still partially resolve things that have not transitioned completely beyond the optical light band in relation to you.

I'm not sure how conventional science explains horizon always being level with eyesight even at 20,000 Miles of Altitude. If Earth was only 8,000 Miles across then surely at 20,000 miles there is no possible way on a convex Earth that we would still see a horizon is there not? (And Even at 100,000 Miles we still see the Horizon like this video demonstrates)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc

Light crosses what at 45 degrees?

Amplifying distance?

'transitioned completely beyond the optical light band in relation to you'  Please explain.

Nobody says the horizon is level with eyesight, if you mean at 90 degrees to the vertical axis of the observer.

45 Degrees in relation to where a Flat Plane should be. 0 Degrees in relation to the Horizontal Axis. 90 Degrees in relation to the Vertical Axis.

Amplifying distance is the distance light can travel before it decelerates and loops and the fringes split apart from your perspective. Transition is the time and distance it takes to travel before it loops together. Basically the transition is 45 degrees from your field of vision, if you can't see 45 degrees in your field of vision you can use fancy telescopes to see up to 45 degrees in field of Vision. Earth is 360 degrees so it's calculated about 25,000 miles around based on circumference experiments. However Force is not linear this chart should show you how Perspective Morphs in relation to the whole.

360 Degrees - 100%
180 Degrees - 25%
90 Degrees - 6.25%
45 Degrees - 1.5625%

So if you take 25,000 miles x .0015625 you get about 39 Miles of Visible distance to the naked eye that can be increased up to about 440 Miles with very powerful telescopes. No further then that is allowable with powerful telescopes at Sea Level. If you go higher up your radius increases though but even at 62,000 Miles high your still only increasing your base telescopic ability .001% while distancing yourself much farther then what you want to be distanced from.

Ask yourself if they can really see Millions of light years away why is it impossible for them to get clear photos of their Moon landing for example when that's only 2 light seconds away?

If The Earth is really only 800 miles thick then it would be possible to see about 55% of it from the surface but beyond the 55% visible the 45% would be shrouded from our vision unless we could physically go to the other side of the Earth's outer shell. 

I'm not sure how conventional science explains horizon always being level with eyesight even at 20,000 Miles of Altitude.

Where did you read that?

If Earth was only 8,000 Miles across then surely at 20,000 miles there is no possible way on a convex Earth that we would still see a horizon is there not?

Sure you'd see a horizon at 20,000 miles.  All the way around the sphere.

(And Even at 100,000 Miles we still see the Horizon like this video demonstrates)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc

That's nowhere near 100,000 miles.  Where did you get that figure?

Quote from: Sculelos on February 04, 2014, 11:21:02 AM

I'm not sure how conventional science explains horizon always being level with eyesight even at 20,000 Miles of Altitude.

Where did you read that?

Quote

If Earth was only 8,000 Miles across then surely at 20,000 miles there is no possible way on a convex Earth that we would still see a horizon is there not?

Sure you'd see a horizon at 20,000 miles.  All the way around the sphere.

Quote

(And Even at 100,000 Miles we still see the Horizon like this video demonstrates)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc

That's nowhere near 100,000 miles.  Where did you get that figure?

I've never seen Earth appear visually as a sphere from Space in videos unless it was virtual simulations. The miles number is uncertain as it's hard to say but I seen some of the Apollo footage where they claimed to be out 100,000 miles in space and you could still see blue Atmosphere still on the Horizon.

I personally believe that they were correct however I do also think that their window shenanigans fakery was also real. So even though they were 100,000 miles high they faked a view of the Earth but they still landed on the Moon a few days later.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I've never seen Earth appear visually as a sphere from Space in videos unless it was virtual simulations. The miles number is uncertain as it's hard to say but I seen some of the Apollo footage where they claimed to be out 100,000 miles in space and you could still see blue Atmosphere still on the Horizon.

The value you remember probably was 100,000 ft. Yes, at that altitude the curvature is completely obvious.

Why would they fake a video?  What did they actually see?