Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

Wow, evade much?

Quote

This list is a list of points that disprove normal flat earth theory,

By 'normal' I assume you mean 'drastic oversimplification favored by REers too lazy to learn or use the search function, and trolls.

No I mean the one the website endorses and describes in it's wiki. This one http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=HomePage
And Ill say it again, learn geometry and make a few working equations to find the motion of any planet or star, or even a method of making a map of the planet(a method, not expecting you to make a map, that would need resources, but making a method doesn't)

Take an observation that is explained by RET, and that contradicts some FE models, but is nonetheless accepted and explained by other FE models. Would that observation be counted as proof of RET, by your definition?

This is circular. You take something explained by the RE (so based on the fact the Earth is round) and want to observe something to be a proof of RE.

You do not seem to understand that the geometry of an object can be determined and based on that geometry we can figure what kind of object we are facing with.

No I mean the one the website endorses and describes in it's wiki.

A wiki describing, for example, celestial gravitation which explains the variation in gravity on the Earth. So, nope, you clearly weren't addressing that.

even a method of making a map of the planet

...You are aware cartography exists, right?

You do not seem to understand that the geometry of an object can be determined and based on that geometry we can figure what kind of object we are facing with.

I understand that. You don't seem to understand that you haven't provided any such proof that the Earth is round.

Quote

No I mean the one the website endorses and describes in it's wiki.

A wiki describing, for example, celestial gravitation which explains the variation in gravity on the Earth. So, nope, you clearly weren't addressing that.

Quote

even a method of making a map of the planet

...You are aware cartography exists, right?

Quote

You do not seem to understand that the geometry of an object can be determined and based on that geometry we can figure what kind of object we are facing with.

I understand that. You don't seem to understand that you haven't provided any such proof that the Earth is round.

As explained before - the measurement and observation of the sun, eg. sunsets etc., the angle of satellite communication dishes, measurements between locations, flight times, GPS operation.

Plus no alternative proof, such as a map, alternative distances.

1.  Big bang theory
2.  Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
3.  Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
4.  Universal Law of Gravitation
5.  Newton's Laws of Motion
6.  Thermodynamics
7.  Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
8.  Theory of General Relativity
9.  Observation of the world in witch I live
10. The way in witch all of the above gel together to make a whole is a beautiful thing that can be tested, both mathematically and physically in the real world.

A spherical earth spinning on an axis, in a solar system, rotating its sun, as other planets do. In its galaxy, in an expanding universe.

"celestial gravitation" thats bullshit, gravity exists or it doesn't, pick one. Even then my other points still stand.
"You are aware cartography exists, right?" Yep and it says the earth is round.

You don't seem to understand that you haven't provided any such proof that the Earth is round.

I did - I gave you an idea based on flight routes. There are poeple on this forum who had showed multiple times that flight distances does not work with planar geometry.

*I* keep asking - how does DEF even know the hemidisks are flat and not 2 semi-globes?

*I* keep asking - how does DEF even know the hemidisks are flat and not 2 semi-globes?

You are also a troll and never contribute anything to the discussion, other then accusing other people of being trolls.  Go away. 

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 25, 2015, 09:24:41 AM

*I* keep asking - how does DEF even know the hemidisks are flat and not 2 semi-globes?

You are also a troll and never contribute anything to the discussion, other then accusing other people of being trolls.  Go away.

I don't get it. JRoweSkeptic is on this thread pushing DEF (FE model - what does it have to do with globes?). When I ask how DEF knows the 2 hemidisks are not 2 semi-globes (this is thread is about globes isn't it?) then I am trolling and not contributing anything? jroa, you should really read what this thread is about.

Quote from: jroa on December 25, 2015, 09:28:05 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 25, 2015, 09:24:41 AM

*I* keep asking - how does DEF even know the hemidisks are flat and not 2 semi-globes?

You are also a troll and never contribute anything to the discussion, other then accusing other people of being trolls.  Go away.

I don't get it. JRoweSkeptic is on this thread pushing DEF (FE model - what does it have to do with globes?). When I ask how DEF knows the 2 hemidisks are not 2 semi-globes (this is thread is about globes isn't it?) then I am trolling and not contributing anything? jroa, you should really read what this thread is about.

You don't get a lot of things.  That is not our deficiency; it is yours. 

Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 11:58:09 PM

Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180^o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.

True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.

Quote

even a method of making a map of the planet

...You are aware cartography exists, right?

Are you aware of what cartography shows.
Cartography is based of making triangles over large distances. So making a triangle large enough to see the angles is pracatical. And maps for large distances make using cartography show the earth is round, and navigation is needs to count for the curve when traveling last distances. So are all the cartographers and navigators on ships and planes lying.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 03:37:33 AM

Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 11:58:09 PM

Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180^o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.

True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 24, 2015, 10:54:46 AM

Quote

even a method of making a map of the planet

...You are aware cartography exists, right?

Are you aware of what cartography shows.
Cartography is based of making triangles over large distances. So making a triangle large enough to see the angles is pracatical. And maps for large distances make using cartography show the earth is round, and navigation is needs to count for the curve when traveling last distances. So are all the cartographers and navigators on ships and planes lying.

Yes!!! They are ALL lying.

 Now that it looks like Jrow had gone, I give my points why the normal FET doesn't work,
1. Foucault pendulum.
2. Coriolis effect.
3. Stars in the southern hemisphere.
4. Celestial sphere http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65251.0#.Vn-_KRmnwj0

Now that it looks like Jrow had gone, I give my points why the normal FET doesn't work,
1. Foucault pendulum.
2. Coriolis effect.
3. Stars in the southern hemisphere.

I almost want to celebrate Jroweskepic leaving, but then I get a sinking feeling that he'll be back. I mean, where else is he's going to go? There's only two active flat earth forums and his forum is completely dead.

To be save you could copy and paste some of the anti DET threads to his forum,  those ones about the moon look good.

Poko well written but I would dispute facts
1 Perspective appears to pull a ship into the ground no curvature. From England on a clear day at ground level you can see the coast of France 22 miles away no curvature.Name any experiment that proves a curvature to water.

5 the pole star remains central in any time lapse photography,however the rest of the stars circle around meaning we are in a fixed position.this could not be done on a revolving planet. I'm not saying the earth is flat but those two points I believe help  FE furthermore with simple  experiments that can be done by yourself and not a NASA scientist.

Poko well written but I would dispute facts
1 Perspective appears to pull a ship into the ground no curvature. From England on a clear day at ground level you can see the coast of France 22 miles away no curvature.Name any experiment that proves a curvature to water.

How much curvature would you expect to see based on the radius of the round earth?

9 Disputed according to gobe theorist a wight measure on the equator measures o.3 percent less on the North Pole proof give a fixed weight and some scales it alters at all. As the further you go to the poles the less the object should way due to centrifugal force.A wagon that weighs three tons in California will way three tones in Iceland.

5 the pole star remains central in any time lapse photography,however the rest of the stars circle around meaning we are in a fixed position.this could not be done on a revolving planet. I'm not saying the earth is flat but those two points I believe help  FE furthermore with simple  experiments that can be done by yourself and not a NASA scientist.

The earths spin causes the movement in time lapse images, the north star happens to be above the north poll so of cause it would stay still, time lapses in the southern hemisphere disprove FE, because you can be the stars revolving around a point at the south poll, which shouldn't exist in FET

Quote from: C PIckering on December 27, 2015, 11:02:13 AM

5 the pole star remains central in any time lapse photography,however the rest of the stars circle around meaning we are in a fixed position.this could not be done on a revolving planet. I'm not saying the earth is flat but those two points I believe help  FE furthermore with simple  experiments that can be done by yourself and not a NASA scientist.

The earths spin causes the movement in time lapse images, the north star happens to be above the north poll so of cause it would stay still, time lapses in the southern hemisphere disprove FE, because you can be the stars revolving around a point at the south poll, which shouldn't exist in FET

Small fix: North Star also revolves around the north pole. This is a common error...

9 Disputed according to gobe theorist a wight measure on the equator measures o.3 percent less on the North Pole proof give a fixed weight and some scales it alters at all. As the further you go to the poles the less the object should way due to centrifugal force.A wagon that weighs three tons in California will way three tones in Iceland.

The centrifugal acceleration on the equator is
v² / r = (465.1)2 / 6378000 = 216318 / 6378000 = 0,03392 m/s2
Comparing this to the acceleration of gravity--say 9.81 m/s2--it is only 0.00346 or 0.346%. Effective gravity on the equator is reduced by the rotation, but only by about 1/3 of a percent

5 the pole star remains central in any time lapse photography,however the rest of the stars circle around meaning we are in a fixed position.this could not be done on a revolving planet. I'm not saying the earth is flat but those two points I believe help  FE furthermore with simple  experiments that can be done by yourself and not a NASA scientist.

Wrong.  Because of the fact that it also rotates in the South it could ONLY be done on a rotating planet.

Curvature of global earth is agreed at 1 mile is 8 inches that isn't what I've worked out but it is agreed by both sides so 22 miles x8 inch

Curvature of global earth is agreed at 1 mile is 8 inches that isn't what I've worked out but it is agreed by both sides so 22 miles x8 inch

Not that simple.

Curvature of global earth is agreed at 1 mile is 8 inches that isn't what I've worked out but it is agreed by both sides so 22 miles x8 inch

Wrong, yes its 8 inches for the first mile, but after that this must be used.

x^2 + (y+R)^2 = R^2

Equivalently, x^2 + y^2 +2Ry = 0     

Equivalently, y = - (x^2 + y^2)/2R

[Note: The notation "x^2" means "x squared"]

9 Disputed according to gobe theorist a wight measure on the equator measures o.3 percent less on the North Pole proof give a fixed weight and some scales it alters at all. As the further you go to the poles the less the object should way due to centrifugal force.A wagon that weighs three tons in California will way three tones in Iceland.

I find it hard translating, but I guess you mean "according to globe theorist a weight measured on the equator measures 0.3 percent less on the North Pole".  You are backwards fo a start, but:
A wagon with a mass of three tonnes (ie 3,000 kg) in California will have a mass of three tonnes in Iceland.
But a wagon that weighs three tonnes at the equator will about 10 kg MORE at the north pole.
We are talking about weight change NOT mass change - there is a big difference.
And you stating otherwise does not change anything!

Saying weight and mass are different? That sounds like physics, which isn't true for reasons!

Saying weight and mass are different? That sounds like physics, which isn't true for reasons!

Yes, but it is a bit hard to leave physics out (of course English might be a start) when trying to explain:
"Disputed according to gobe(sic) theorist a wight(sic) measure(sic) on the equator measures o.3(sic) percent less on the North Pole(wrong) proof give a fixed weight and some scales it alters at all. As the further you go to the poles the less the object should way(sicker) due to centrifugal force(wrong).A wagon that weighs three tons in California will way(sic) three tones(sic) in Iceland?"
You do see my problem!  I just hope I don't have too many typos - of coarse wee al make sum misteaks sumtimes.