Triangles

Dear Flat Earthers,

Let me introduce myself. I am Geodetective, and you can find my info on geodetective.wordpress.com. I am a YEC, so I know what it feels like to be exposed to ad hominem argumentations and irrelevant arguments. However, I do like good debates with good arguments.

When it comes to the flat earth theory, I am rather convinced it is false. And I'm actually surprised that there are still people who think the earth is flat. But I'm interested in what you are thinking. Actually, some people use this argument against me, in the sense: "If you believe the bible that way, you probably believe the earth is flat." But I don't, because I see not any reason to believe the earth is flat based on the bible.

I'm also quite surprised by a lot of arguments I've found on this website, because I think they are verifiably wrong.

But anyway, I'd like real science, where arguments are verifiable. Let's just focus on one argument. In this case I think I can give you a verifiable argument against FE. It all has to do with simple triangles.

Let me list 12 locations on earth:
1) Praia (Cape Verde)
2) Cape Town (South Africa)   
3) Kuwait
4) Qeqertat (greenland)
5) Belize city
6) Mar del Plata (Argentina)
7) Pekoa Airport, (Vanuatu)
Cocos (Keeling) island. (Indian ocean)
9) Dandong (China)
10) Honolulu (Hawaii)
11) Adamstown (pitcairn islands) (pacific ocean)
12) Concordia station (antarctica)

Except for point 12, all these locations have an airport. People have traveled from and to these points all the time...
it is possible to travel from any of these places to any other. But I am interested in only some of the travel routes. For example, route 1-2 is the route from Praia (Cape Verde) to Cape Town (South Africa). You can calculate the travel distance using this site: http://www.worldatlas.com/travelaids/flight_distance.htm
And shortest distance is 6865 km.
Route 2-3 (From Cape Town (South Africa) to Kuwait) is 7544 km.
Route 1-3 (From Praia (Cape Verde) to Kuwait) is 7391 km.
These together, forms a triangle, which I call triangle 1-2-3.

Using this method, one can make 20 triangles from the points I gave. Let's make 4 groups of triangles:
A) 1-2-3, 1-3-4, 1-4-5, 1-5-6, 1-6-2
B) 7-8-9, 7-9-10, 7-10-11, 7-11-12, 7-12-8
C) 2-3-8, 3-8-9, 3-4-9, 4-9-10, 4-5-10
D) 5-10-11, 5-6-11, 6-11-12, 2-6-12, 2-8-12.

Ok, that may look confusing. And since Antarctica is involved in there (which seems heavilly debated on this site), let's just focus on group A, which does not contain Antarctica.
For these 5 triangles we need to find out the distance for 10 routes. (We already had 3 of these):
1-2: 6856 km
1-3: 7391 km
1-4: 7420 km
1-5: 6940 km
1-6: 6783 km
2-3: 7544 km
3-4: 7441 km
4-5: 6785 km
5-6: 6917 km
2-6: 6704 km

Now I'd like to ask you to make a scale  model of the first 5 triangles. Take 5 pieces of paper, and draw one of these triangles on each of these pieces of paper. Scale it so that 1000 km is 1 cm.
Also, mark corner 1 on it (with a red pen or something). All the first 5 triangles have corner 1 on them somewhere.
Take some scissors, and cut these 5 triangles out of the paper. 

Next, get some tape.

Now lay the first two triangles (1-2-3 and 1-3-4) next to each other, so that the edges 1-3 are touching each other. Tape them together.
Continue doing this with the other five triangles. So next triangle (1-4-5) should have it's side 1-4 attached to the second triangle.

When you are done doing this, you have 5 triangles taped together into one shape.

If you like, you can continue doing this with the other 15 triangles, but that is not even nessecary.

I wonder, what do you see? And what is your conclusion?

I suspect that there's gonna be a weird discontinuity amongst those supposedly always-coinciding triangles, since it is trying to simulate projecting round surface into a piece of paper without any distortion. I'll try it on autocad, since I'm really bad with rulers

And you asked the flat earthers to do something a bit complex, they might get really cranky. You also mentioned the bible, which (as far as I know) will make them even crankier. So, brace yourself... Anyway, welcome to the forum

So I did group A in order, and I drew the points in this order:
1 2 3 4 5 6 2

The 1st 'point 2' and the 2nd 'point 2' doesn't coincide. So those 6 points can't be sitting on a flat surface, since drawing them on a flat surface causes a considerable discontinuity. I hope this is the kind of answer that you want.

http://imageshack.com/a/img661/342/ilNJxp.png

I am a YEC, so I know what it feels like to be exposed to ad hominem argumentations and irrelevant arguments. However, I do like good debates with good arguments.

They will not accept your facts just as you will not accept facts for an old earth. That is because the motivation behind belief trumps facts and data.

You can also calculate the angles of these triangles; you will always find that they are greater than 180 degrees, as would be expected on a spherical Earth.

It's not about evidence for flat earthers.  If flight disprove flat Earth then the flights are fake, if the stars disprove flat Earth then the government made them, if you can see the ISS then it's a hologram, and of the >10% of the world's pilulation who can personally verify that Earth is round they are all conspirators.  I have personally done multiple experiments showing that Earth is round and the flat earthers just ignore it.  I have even been accused of being a government shill.

I don't know why they want to believe this stuff so badly, but for them it's not about evidence or truth.  It's about being a flat earther and feeling superior to all the "sheep" around you, and they would aperemtly rather have that then know the truth and be objective and unbiased.

Quote from: geodetective on August 18, 2015, 08:08:47 AM

I am a YEC, so I know what it feels like to be exposed to ad hominem argumentations and irrelevant arguments. However, I do like good debates with good arguments.

They will not accept your facts just as you will not accept facts for an old earth. That is because the motivation behind belief trumps facts and data.

They would most likely say that those numbers were fabricated to keep everybody on believing that the earth was round. So organizations like NASA and other outer-space companies like SpaceX could claim to do outer-space projects while the allocated budget would go directly into their bank accounts. To make this work, the airliners are part of the conspiracy, the oil companies that provide the fuel for those airliners are part of the conspiracy too.

Which just gave me an idea:
Distances on 2D plane will be shorter on round surface compared to flat surface. Let's say, for an example, the distance between 6 and 2 is questioned, while other distances are measured. Then on flat earth, it would be 11772 km (http://imageshack.com/a/img538/9076/GGYeMe.png)
While on round earth, the distance would be 6704 km.

Let's assume for the moment that the earth is flat. Those oil company that provides the fuel for 6 to 2 flight route will have to provide fuel for 11722 km flight, while in the report they have to state that the amount of fuel provided is just for 6704 km flight.

That gives a contradiction. The point of this conspiracy is so that big players like NASA, spaceX, virgin galactic, etc. can claim to provide things that they aren't actually providing so they will get all the money for themselves. However, the oil companies (which have always been the big players in many situations) have to claim that they are providing a certain amount, while the amount they are providing is actually more. This goes on and on as tens of thousands of flights take place every day, and this longer-distance problem happens everywhere. How is this profitable for them?

Trolls are probably gonna play dumb to answer this. But hey, they're trolls, they can be as dumb as they need to be, then become smart again all of a sudden afterwards.

Way to go, dog pack.  You did not miss this chance to gang together, did you?  I am proud of our government for upping their shill training.  You people were losing it for a while. 

Way to go, dog pack.  You did not miss this chance to gang together, did you?  I am proud of our government for upping their shill training.  You people were losing it for a while.

  You guys are a waste of oxygen.

Way to go, dog pack.  You did not miss this chance to gang together, did you?  I am proud of our government for upping their shill training.  You people were losing it for a while.

Way to go, jroa. You did not miss this chance to use name calling and personal attacks instead of using facts. How about you prove us wrong?

One more reason this site is in shambles.

Actually, the bible does supposedly imply the earth is flat. Just ask iWitness, he used that argument a few times.

Actually, the bible does supposedly imply the earth is flat. Just ask iWitness, he used that argument a few times.

Sometimes when someone asks "why do you guys believe the earth is flat? is it because of the bible?", the flat earthers will rant "why do you keep on tying this with the bible? some of the flat earthers I know aren't even christian. the earth is flat because it is, THE EVIDENCE IS EVERYWHERE!!!". But such response didn't happen here, probably because I already mentioned it in the beginning.

Quote from: geodetective on August 18, 2015, 08:08:47 AM

I am a YEC, so I know what it feels like to be exposed to ad hominem argumentations and irrelevant arguments. However, I do like good debates with good arguments.

They will not accept your facts just as you will not accept facts for an old earth. That is because the motivation behind belief trumps facts and data.

Oh I'd love to discuss the evidence in the young/old earth debate, but I think this is not the appropriate place to do so.

I'm a bit disappointed that no flat earther has answered my question. I don't want to know what they "would probably say", but I just want to know what their real answer is...

hello_there did a nice job with the cad drawing. It's now easier to cut this shape out and get tape, to tape these 2 final edges together. But I think the Flat Earthers would reason there is something wrong with what I said. I just want to know what is wrong then. It's a sincere question.

Oh I'd love to discuss the evidence in the young/old earth debate, but I think this is not the appropriate place to do so.

So would I. At least nuclear physics is on the table as a reality in such a discussion. In FE "discussions" even gravity is denied. Not a lot is left to wield an argument with amoung these folks.

If you want to see what you're getting yourself into take a gander at some posts from Excelsior John.

I'm a bit disappointed that no flat earther has answered my question. I don't want to know what they "would probably say", but I just want to know what their real answer is...

I think it's because the round earthers have already mentioned the answers that would likely be said by the flat earthers, thus answering will just prove the roundies right. So, sorry geodetective...

And also, some, if not most, of the so called "flat earthers" are just trolls, and their goal is to prove the roundies wrong. If I were a real flat earther, I would just answer (and maybe add some arguments to back it up), even if it was already mentioned by roundies. I wouldn't care if roundies were right about me, since my goal was to prove the earth was flat, not to upset people.

So for real flat earthers out there, you are welcome to answer geodetective.

Quote from: flounder on August 18, 2015, 10:56:41 AM

Quote from: geodetective on August 18, 2015, 08:08:47 AM

I am a YEC, so I know what it feels like to be exposed to ad hominem argumentations and irrelevant arguments. However, I do like good debates with good arguments.

They will not accept your facts just as you will not accept facts for an old earth. That is because the motivation behind belief trumps facts and data.

Oh I'd love to discuss the evidence in the young/old earth debate, but I think this is not the appropriate place to do so.

Go to S&AS then.

It's now easier to cut this shape out and get tape, to tape these 2 final edges together.

I just did it and it ended up being concave, WHAT'S GOING ON? TURNS OUT THE EARTH IS CONCAVE ALL ALONG!!!!

Wow, just realized my tin foil hat was still on. So yeah, taped them, fits the RE model

Ok, then flat earth disproven. Case closed.

I think it takes a real empirical critical thinker to understand that we simply don't know you use numbers that you didn't verify and call it fact these numbers are more than likely from a source that would have a vested interest in having people believe they aren't special. I look at the Bedford experiment I am not sure I believe it but I can tell you that on the st Lawrence river I have used a telescope and can see a mark I personally placed on a rock that is 1 inch above the water line at 2 miles now I don't know but to me that seems pretty flat but maybe the river runs down hill for a bit and then momentum carries it up hill maybe on a globe it is just one piece that is flat I can give maybe all day long but the fact is there is only one way to know for sure. That is to verify it. as far as I have seen there is ZERO science that proves either way every piece has seriously flawed methodology. I can tell you that when I am in a plane looking at a city I am coming into like Vancouver where I can see from North Vancouver to Richmond which is almost 50 miles apart everything looks square but according to some of that science flat earth debunkers are so fond of sighting there should be massive curvature. So much that you would think it noticeable. But again maybe the area is simply flat. Again I don't know anything but this. Those who speak in certainties are only certainly to be made a fool. God Bless You all