wheres THE GLOBE EARTH SOCIETY

Who needs GES? The entire modern science and wikipedia (as a basic source) and thousands of easily avaliable books all have everything you need to know. With evidence, experiments, proofs, measurements, research, all in details and it's only up to you whether you bother reading whatever you want and investigating results.

For instance, poeple across the world made multiple experiments about the curvature. There's a video that I've posted recently about one such experiment (FES pretends it doesn't exist) and results matched globe predictions.

Quote from: -leigh- on September 09, 2016, 11:34:51 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 09, 2016, 10:15:36 AM

svenanders started a round earth society, his forum is offline now. It was basically a clone of this forum.

hahahahah

FES starts a forum. 10 years later the same questions remain unanswered, even more ad hoc answers are provided, even more holes are revealed.

That's not funny. That's a fail.

omg here comes the science books again,for godsake look at things from another point of view rather than your science teathers ass,wake up

omg here comes the science books again,for godsake look at things from another point of view rather than your science teathers ass,wake up

Obvious troll is obvious.

The questions get answered, you just disagree with the answers.

Look at the Sun.
Does it change apparent size while arcing the sky?
Does it get closer and then farther?
Does it changes angular speed, or constantly goes 15 degrees per hour?
15 degrees per hour is basic for orientation in wilderness.

Look at the Moon.
Does it look like "heavenly crystal"?
Or it has craters?
What made those craters?
While one observer sees it as circle, does people from other parts of the world see it as ellipse? (if it is disc)
Do people from different parts of the world see different faces of the Moon, or just same face rotated? (if it is sphere)

Look at the mountains on sunrise or sunset.
Does horizon cast shadows on them?
Does horizon casts chadows on tall buildings?
Can it, if the Sun was still 3000 miles above the ground?
What do you think, why would Flat Earthers need some weird, half-working "perspective" to explain it?
Why they ask you to look for youtube videos, instead of looking the sun fro yourself?
(Use sun filter, or cheap welding mask from Lowe's, or something similar)

Where is "science" to "brainwash" you to see those things for yourself?

Do you think Globe Earth Society is necessary?

Where is Salt Water Society to prove that ocean water is salty?

Quote from: -leigh- on September 09, 2016, 11:46:39 AM

omg here comes the science books again,for godsake look at things from another point of view rather than your science teathers ass,wake up

Obvious troll is obvious.

leave us in peace to enjoy our flat earth,we aint like you clowns we are happy people

Quote from: rabinoz on September 09, 2016, 06:13:13 AM

Quote from: -leigh- on September 09, 2016, 05:58:40 AM

there isnt one because you just have to pick a book up and believe it,its what the educational system has shown you,globers have nothing to talk about amongst themselves so they must find us flat earthers simply amazing,all you do is go on and on about us flat earthers and we are wrong in everything we say so really in the back of your minds you must know we are on to something and are really quite interesting,if you didnt have any doubts about the globe earth you wouldnt be on here,i rest my case

Why do we need one?

The earth is a globe, what's for us to discuss.

It fits all observations - even things like:
      the sun setting behind the horizon (sorry jroa and ski!),
      the sun staying the same size througout the day,
      the times and directions of sunrise and sunset, and following on from this,
      the length of daylight hours anywhere on earth, including the six months daylight and night at each pole.
      the elevation angles of the sun from anywhere on earth and
      how GPS works almost everywhere on earth, even over oceans far from land, though it;s a bit "flaky" near the poles.

These are just a few points that a lot of Flat Earthers seem to balk at.

il pick one out,the sun doesnt stay the same size during the day it gets smaller the higher it rises then gets bigger the lower it comes around

Can you post a video of the sun getting smaller and bigger throughout the day?

The questions get answered, you just disagree with the answers.

There are quite a few questions that I have never seen answered well.

1. Constant size of the sun: The only answer I've seen for this is the one on the Wiki from Rowbotham. Does anyone actually take that explanation seriously? (Besides Tom Bishop of course.)
2. South Celestial Pole: I started a thread about this recently. No plausible explanation was given.
3. The sun shining and casting shadows on the underside of clouds.
...
(and many more)

If these questions have been answered, perhaps you can point me to the answer? I surely can't find it.

The questions get answered, you just disagree with the answers.

I have a question for you, If you flat earthers say the sun is getting closer and farther how come the temperature difference is only 20 or so degrees? Is there some magical force keeping the earth from getting too cold and too hot?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 09, 2016, 12:01:28 PM

The questions get answered, you just disagree with the answers.

I have a question for you, If you flat earthers say the sun is getting closer and farther how come the temperature difference is only 20 or so degrees? Is there some magical force keeping the earth from getting too cold and too hot?

The round earth has rather large fluctuations of sunlight as well: night and day. I don't really see why this is a problem.

The difference might be seen in flux of direct radiation from the Sun at noon and at 5 pm.
What would it be if Sun is 3000 miles coming and going, and what if just changes angle
of rays passing atmosphere and hitting ground from constant 93 million miles away.

Meanwhile, temperatures of the surrounding air and ground still don't have to fall quickly.

In a desert on Globe Earth nights are much colder than days.

Venus has much higher AVERAGE temperature than Mercury,
because of heat captured/preserved by thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere.

The difference might be seen in flux of direct radiation from the Sun at noon and at 5 pm.
What would it be if Sun is 3000 miles coming and going, and what if just changes angle
of rays passing atmosphere and hitting ground from constant 93 million miles away.

Meanwhile, temperatures of the surrounding air and ground still don't have to fall quickly.

In a desert on Globe Earth nights are much colder than days.

Venus has much higher AVERAGE temperature than Mercury,
because of heat captured/preserved by thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere.

Relevant post by Rounder on the other site:

The Long Version.  Quite long, in fact, and I apologize for that.  But in order to adequately make the point, I need to cover a lot of ground that will be unfamiliar to most readers, so please bear with me.  I have broken the monologue up into smaller chunks.  Please, if you are going to quote from a section, EDIT IT DOWN to only the sentence or two you want to talk about, instead of quoting an entire post.

Infrared electromagnetic waves occupy the portion of the spectrum at lower energy (lower frequency and longer wavelength) than the visible light spectrum.  The 'infra' portion of the word is from the Latin word for 'below'.  All objects at temperatures above absolute zero emit infrared energy, and they emit across a range of frequencies: very little (essentially zero) energy at some minimum frequency, very little (essentially zero) at some maximum frequency, with a peak intensity somewhere between those two.  The hotter an object is, the more it emits.  This is known as Planck's Law.  "More" in this instance has two meanings: it refers both to intensity (in the same way that a 100 watt bulb is brighter than a 60 watt bulb) and also to energy (in the same way that visible light has more energy than infrared).  The relationship is illustrated by this image:

Each line represents the radiation profile of an object at a certain temperature, in Degrees Kelvin.  You can see that as temperature increases, the intensity (watts per square meter on the Y axis) increases at every wavelength, and you can also see that the curve shifts to the left, reaching its peak at lower and lower wavelengths (micrometers on the X axis).  Lower wavelength equals higher energy, and more watts equals higher energy, both at the peak and in the total of all wavelengths. 

Observations of the Sun have been performed with various infrared cameras over the years.  These cameras actually detect TOTAL energy, not the individual wavelengths and their individual intensity.  It is therefore necessary to know exactly how total energy and temperature are related, in order to determine an object's temperature from its infrared energy.  There is a formula for this: the Stefan-Boltzman Law.  Total energy is a function of the fourth power of absolute (Kelvin) temperature.  From this law we can determine the surface temperature of any object by observing the infrared radiation it emits, and at the same time we can determine at what rate it radiates energy.  This is how infrared cameras can “measure” temperature (I put “measure” in quotation marks because there is more to it than that, which we won’t get into here).  We can do the same for very distant objects, like the sun.  For the sun those numbers are: 5777 degrees Kelvin (the yellow line on the chart) and 63 million watts per square meter. 

We can calculate the amount of energy that arrives at the upper atmosphere using the inverse square law, if we know the distance to the sun and its diameter.  Doing the math for the one spot directly below the sun, and thus receiving the sun’s rays directly perpendicular, the energy arriving at earth varies with the distance from earth to sun as we orbit.  The earth is closest to the sun at perihelion in January, when the earth is 147 million kilometers out.  That works out to 211.1 solar radii, which results in an inverse square result of 1414 watts per square meter at the spot directly facing the sun.  The outermost point in the orbit, aphelion, happens in July.  We are at a distance of 152 million kilometers, or 218.3 solar radii.  The inverse square result that day is therefore somewhat less, at 1322 watts.  The quoted average on the internet varies; some sites use 1360 watts per square meter, some use 1370, while Wikipedia settles on the satellite-measured value of 1361.  The subsolar point lies exactly on the equator on each equinox.  Next, let’s move away from the subsolar point and consider Portland Oregon, just above the 45th parallel, also n equinox day.  Portland will be slightly further from the sun than the equator will be, as curving a little bit around the planet adds a little bit of distance.  That difference is only 1866 km, a vanishingly small fraction of the 5 million kilometer difference between aphelion to perihelion.  Therefore we can ignore the change in distance and need only consider incident angle of the radiation, which in effect takes a square meter of radiation measured perpendicular to the sun and spreads it out over a larger surface area due to the curvature of the earth.  This reduces the equinox day energy at Portland to 70% of the equatorial watts per square meter value.  This calculated value agrees with measured values, as illustrated in the chart below.

So yeah, it seems doable if you want to go at it from the perspective of incoming sunlight. However, basing your argument purely off temperature difference could be difficult. Heat transfer within the atmosphere is not exactly a simple system to model.

See my signature for the answer "why we are here".

Quote from: -leigh- on September 09, 2016, 06:20:31 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on September 09, 2016, 06:13:13 AM

Quote from: -leigh- on September 09, 2016, 05:58:40 AM

there isnt one because you just have to pick a book up and believe it,its what the educational system has shown you,globers have nothing to talk about amongst themselves so they must find us flat earthers simply amazing,all you do is go on and on about us flat earthers and we are wrong in everything we say so really in the back of your minds you must know we are on to something and are really quite interesting,if you didnt have any doubts about the globe earth you wouldnt be on here,i rest my case

Why do we need one?

The earth is a globe, what's for us to discuss.

It fits all observations - even things like:
      the sun setting behind the horizon (sorry jroa and ski!),
      the sun staying the same size througout the day,
      the times and directions of sunrise and sunset, and following on from this,
      the length of daylight hours anywhere on earth, including the six months daylight and night at each pole.
      the elevation angles of the sun from anywhere on earth and
      how GPS works almost everywhere on earth, even over oceans far from land, though it;s a bit "flaky" near the poles.

These are just a few points that a lot of Flat Earthers seem to balk at.

or come on fella you keep using the same quotes,if your so right why keep on

i have answers to all your points just like you have to mine,keep them coming

  We have another psychologist do we,  with your

You have answers? They had better be more convincing than any I've seen yet.

More magic "perspective", "refraction" and "atmoplanic lensing", or do you have some new guesses?

Keep it up, we'll soon have enough for a new "Flat Earth Imaginary Optics Theory" textbook.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 09, 2016, 06:13:13 AM

Quote from: -leigh- on September 09, 2016, 05:58:40 AM

there isnt one because you just have to pick a book up and believe it,its what the educational system has shown you,globers have nothing to talk about amongst themselves so they must find us flat earthers simply amazing,all you do is go on and on about us flat earthers and we are wrong in everything we say so really in the back of your minds you must know we are on to something and are really quite interesting,if you didnt have any doubts about the globe earth you wouldnt be on here,i rest my case

      the sun staying the same size througout the day,

il pick one out,the sun doesnt stay the same size during the day it gets smaller the higher it rises then gets bigger the lower it comes around

For a start, on the on any Flat Earth model we have seen the sun is much closer when overhead and should appear larger.

But from actual observations the angular size the sun does not change during the day.
Have a look at this thread The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun.
Here is a bit of the OP:
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!


Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!


So what are you going to "explain away" next?

Quote from: deadsirius on September 09, 2016, 10:09:47 AM

The sunbeams "spreading out" as they come through the clouds (a.k.a. crepuscular rays) sometimes do admittedly look like they should be coming from a source not far above the clouds.  However it's an illusion.  The sun is not straight above but lower in the sky where you're facing, therefore the beams are coming through the clouds at an angle.  The beams coming through the clouds are parallel, but appear to spread out due to the perspective as they come towards you.  Like train tracks seem to "spread out" as they approach you, but are in reality parallel.

well at least you give an answer but its a load of poo,thx dude

why do you just 'say' things?
This is a 'debate' forum, you're supposed to back up your claims

I'll show you how:
ok, so crepuscular (angular) sun rays coming out from one spot in the clouds at different angles, make it look as if the sun is just above the clouds

this is testable

if the sun was indeed just above the spot when the rays come from, then no matter where you go, the sun would still shine through that same spot right?

Well that absolutely does NOT happen, here's an easy experiment ANYONE can do:

let's say you're on a beach looking out to sea, and you see the sun rays shining on the sea
if it was just above the clouds, you'd be able to travel towards the shine and PASS the shine you see

this doesn't happen

instead, the further you travel, the further away the sun gets

another way to prove this:

take a friend to the beach where you can see the sun shining on the sea, get your friend to travel to PAST the shine YOU see
now ask him which way HE needs to look to see the same shine

he would need to look AWAY from you, NOT towards you (even though YOU see the shine in between you both)


this explanation is very easy to understand, it also provides testable evidence, it proves you wrong


so now you know 100% that the crepuscular sun rays do NOT prove a localised sun, in fact, they prove the absolute opposite, you should no longer use that as any proof of a localised sun (that's why most flat earthers stopped using this as evidence a long time ago)


the only thing crepuscular sun rays prove, is that flat earthers can't grasp basic perspective