Watch as a FEer attempts to debunk a round earth...laughable to say the least

When I say both directions I mean the direction outwards from the center and the gravity exercing a force downwards.

It doesn’t have sense that the earth is infinitely thick/deep, because then, the gravity would be infinite and that has no sense at all.

If we don’t orbit, how can you explain the planets moving when you watch them with a telescope.

By the way, it doesn’t have sense of us being the only flat planet. How is it that when I look the planets with my (decent enough) amateur telescope I can observe how they spin throughout days.

When I say both directions I mean the direction outwards from the center and the gravity exercing a force downwards.

You appear to be describing a spherical Earth.

It doesn’t have sense that the earth is infinitely thick/deep, because then, the gravity would be infinite and that has no sense at all.

You are inserting 'gravity' into a concept that does not include 'gravity'.

If we don’t orbit, how can you explain the planets moving when you watch them with a telescope.

Are you claiming that planets orbit the sun because the Earth is a sphere?

By the way, it doesn’t have sense of us being the only flat planet. How is it that when I look the planets with my (decent enough) amateur telescope I can observe how they spin throughout days.

Perhaps they spin throughout the days?

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

When I say both directions I mean the direction outwards from the center and the gravity exercing a force downwards.

You appear to be describing a spherical Earth.

Why should I be describing spherical earth? If you put a little lego man on top of a disk and you spin it, the lego man will fall because of the centripedal force pulling OUTWARDS and GRAVITY pulling DOWNWARDS.

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

By the way, it doesn’t have sense of us being the only flat planet. How is it that when I look the planets with my (decent enough) amateur telescope I can observe how they spin throughout days.

Perhaps they spin throughout the days?

You still haven’t answered my question, how can I see that other planets spin LIKE A SPHERE WOULD but instead earth doesn’t spin like a sphere (from a FEer’s perspective)

I'm still waiting on one reason why the earth is a globe.

Because it's the only model that adequately explains stellar rotation around two celestial axes with stars maintaining a constant angular distance from each other without introducing conflict in other observable phenomena.
There's your one reason. Now run along.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 09, 2017, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

When I say both directions I mean the direction outwards from the center and the gravity exercing a force downwards.

You appear to be describing a spherical Earth.

Why should I be describing spherical earth? If you put a little lego man on top of a disk and you spin it, the lego man will fall because of the centripedal force pulling OUTWARDS and GRAVITY pulling DOWNWARDS.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 09, 2017, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

By the way, it doesn’t have sense of us being the only flat planet. How is it that when I look the planets with my (decent enough) amateur telescope I can observe how they spin throughout days.

Perhaps they spin throughout the days?

You still haven’t answered my question, how can I see that other planets spin LIKE A SPHERE WOULD but instead earth doesn’t spin like a sphere (from a FEer’s perspective)

Saturn has rings. Why doesn't Jupiter have rings? They are both planets.
Shouldn't they be the same?

Shouldn't Earth be a huge ball of gas like Jupiter and have rings like Saturn?

I'm still waiting on one reason why the earth is a globe.

It is the only model that I have seen:

• that explains the appearance of sunrise and sunsets,
• that explains the directions of sunrise and sunsets,
• that explains a sharp sea-air horizon whose distance increases predictably with elevation,
• that explains why the horizon fall below the local horizontal more and more as the elevation is increased,
  Al Biruni used this to calculate the radius of the earth quite accurately,
• in which the observed elevation angles of the sun from widely separate latitudes gives a consistent result for sun location.

Then there were all those reasons that the Greeks came up with, but what would they now.
And now, of course, there are plenty on instruments that measure the earths rotation, and that possibly implies it is a Globe.

I never was much good at counting, have I got to "one reason why the earth is a globe" yet?

A pilot gets his license, jumps into a plane, and flies from Santiago to Sydney. Maybe if you could state your actual argument, it would make things go a bit more quickly.

No, no pilot "pilot gets his license, jumps into a plane, and flies from Santiago to Sydney".
But how many times does this same argument have to be presented?

It's been done to death and is mainly denied, ignored or brushed off by those like yourself who change "maps" more often than they change their clothes.
Or ones like th3rm0m3t3r0 who don't have any map, but insist that there is no problem on a flat earth anyway!
So many flat-earthers seem to be of the opinion that if they ignore all the evidence it will go away.

But, the basic problem with Southern Hemisphere flights is that the Santiago to Sydney great circle distance is about 11,400 km, well within the range of the 747B that is commonly used.
On the "Ice-Wall" map, however, the shortest distance is about 25,400 km, well outside the range of the aircraft used.
But, of course so many, like yourself, jroa, junker and th3rm0m3t3r0 will crow, "But there is no official map!".
But, I'm sure that for any flat earth continental layout you find there will be flight and/or measured distances that will not fit the map.

Here, read what  TWCobra, a Captain on the QANTAS QF27,QF28 flights Sydney to/from Santiago says about it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TWCobra is the pilot on this Flight QF28.

Quote from: TWCobra

A Flight over the Antarctic Sea Ice From Chile to Australia (QF28)

QF28, Route on Mercator's Projection

[Nov 18 2016] For anyone interested, in a couple of hours I'll be heading out of Santiago heading for Sydney on the QF28. The flight plan has us spending quite a bit of time at 71'30" South and the cloud forecast at the moment shows not a lot of cloud! Lucky I brought 2 GoPros with me!

Fingers crossed for a good time-lapse video of the ice pack!

The pic above shows the route. I've been meaning to post something explaining great circle routes and why they are faster. This map will help once I compare it to the Google Earth representation of the track.

In the meantime we will be taking off around 1700 GMT and landing about 14 hours later. Only around 5% of the flight will be visible on FR24 as there is just nobody to pick up our ADSB signals.

Main Flight plan has just arrived with 13:25 as the flight time which should have us in Sydney on schedule at 0645 UTC. Here is what the flight looks like in the Nav software.

QF28, Route on Polar Projection

[UPDATE: Nov 19, 2016]
Just got in. We had 30 minutes with an awesome view of the ice.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Read the rest in: A Flight over the Antarctic Sea Ice From Chile to Australia (QF28)

You might also enjoy reading Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America.

Quote from: Garden hose on December 10, 2017, 02:38:55 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 09, 2017, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

When I say both directions I mean the direction outwards from the center and the gravity exercing a force downwards.

You appear to be describing a spherical Earth.

Why should I be describing spherical earth? If you put a little lego man on top of a disk and you spin it, the lego man will fall because of the centripedal force pulling OUTWARDS and GRAVITY pulling DOWNWARDS.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 09, 2017, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

By the way, it doesn’t have sense of us being the only flat planet. How is it that when I look the planets with my (decent enough) amateur telescope I can observe how they spin throughout days.

Perhaps they spin throughout the days?

You still haven’t answered my question, how can I see that other planets spin LIKE A SPHERE WOULD but instead earth doesn’t spin like a sphere (from a FEer’s perspective)

Saturn has rings. Why doesn't Jupiter have rings? They are both planets.
Shouldn't they be the same?

Shouldn't Earth be a huge ball of gas like Jupiter and have rings like Saturn?

Dude, did you even go to school?
Do a quick search on any secondary school website “the solar system” and you’ll understand everything.

I even recommend you going back to school, you need it.

Quote from: Garden hose on December 10, 2017, 02:38:55 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 09, 2017, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

When I say both directions I mean the direction outwards from the center and the gravity exercing a force downwards.

You appear to be describing a spherical Earth.

Why should I be describing spherical earth? If you put a little lego man on top of a disk and you spin it, the lego man will fall because of the centripedal force pulling OUTWARDS and GRAVITY pulling DOWNWARDS.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 09, 2017, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

By the way, it doesn’t have sense of us being the only flat planet. How is it that when I look the planets with my (decent enough) amateur telescope I can observe how they spin throughout days.

Perhaps they spin throughout the days?

You still haven’t answered my question, how can I see that other planets spin LIKE A SPHERE WOULD but instead earth doesn’t spin like a sphere (from a FEer’s perspective)

Saturn has rings. Why doesn't Jupiter have rings? They are both planets.
Shouldn't they be the same?

Shouldn't Earth be a huge ball of gas like Jupiter and have rings like Saturn?

Jupiter does have rings.  As do Uranus and Neptune.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/195-How-many-planets-in-the-Solar-System-have-rings-

Hey Bullwinkle, on a flat earth how far is it from Santiago to Sydney?
I asked Mr. Davis but he did not respond.

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 05:17:07 PM

GPS does not require a globe. Many of your other 'proofs' are just nouns.

How about you start with one, so we can discuss it.

LMAO....A GLOBAL positioning satellite doesn't require a globe?

It is correct to say GPS does not require satellites or a globe.

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 05:47:59 PM

If I knew why, I wouldn't believe as I do. I wouldn't spend all my free time on forums like these, or doing interviews, or fighting the good fight. I'd be content to be right with the popular opinion.

I choose the non-euclidean map then, if it doesn't matter which flat earth map I use. Wilmore's map isn't a bad second choice. Other choices include the south centric flat earth map, the collapsing flat earth map, and the Greenville map.

I would put them with the receivers and transmitters. If I had an unlimited budget, I'd likely use pseudolites (you can find detailed engineering descriptions to these in the IEEE XPLOR database) to increase coverage. I'd probably use these in a caching sort of way, and be certain of the time it takes for them to talk to the system of record.

Hey JD, you want one question at a time so you can address that on point.
Fair enough.

You mention 5 maps in your post.
Not sure how that works in the real world but let's examine it.
Kinda sounds like the shot gun effect.
Put enough projectiles in the air and you're bound to hit something.

In the globular conspiracy type thingy,
Distance from Santiago Chile to Sydney Australia is about 11,3340 KMs.

Give me an estimate of this distance for each of the 5 maps you mention.
Yes, I know.  How can one question require 5 answers?

OK, give me your best estimate from your favourite map.
 

I'll give you an estimate from my favourite, assuming the data you provided me is accurate. About 11,3340 KMs.

Mea culpa for the typo.
Should have been 11,340 KMs

Very clever.
But now could you answer the question?

On a flat earth how far is it from Santiago to Sydney?

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 10, 2017, 04:39:43 AM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 10, 2017, 02:38:55 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 09, 2017, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

When I say both directions I mean the direction outwards from the center and the gravity exercing a force downwards.

You appear to be describing a spherical Earth.

Why should I be describing spherical earth? If you put a little lego man on top of a disk and you spin it, the lego man will fall because of the centripedal force pulling OUTWARDS and GRAVITY pulling DOWNWARDS.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 09, 2017, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

By the way, it doesn’t have sense of us being the only flat planet. How is it that when I look the planets with my (decent enough) amateur telescope I can observe how they spin throughout days.

Perhaps they spin throughout the days?

You still haven’t answered my question, how can I see that other planets spin LIKE A SPHERE WOULD but instead earth doesn’t spin like a sphere (from a FEer’s perspective)

Saturn has rings. Why doesn't Jupiter have rings? They are both planets.
Shouldn't they be the same?

Shouldn't Earth be a huge ball of gas like Jupiter and have rings like Saturn?

Jupiter does have rings.  As do Uranus and Neptune.

But Earth does not.
Are you now saying Earth is NOT like planets?

Hey Bullwinkle, on a flat earth how far is it from Santiago to Sydney?
I asked Mr. Davis but he did not respond.

On the map I'm looking at . . . about 7­½".   

Quote from: ER22 on December 10, 2017, 10:53:45 AM

Hey Bullwinkle, on a flat earth how far is it from Santiago to Sydney?
I asked Mr. Davis but he did not respond.

On the map I'm looking at . . . about 7­½".   

LOL, that's funny.
But seriously, why can't all the brainiacs who believe in a flat earth answer that one simple question?
How far is it from Santiago to Sydney?

Mea culpa for the typo.
Should have been 11,340 KMs

Very clever.
But now could you answer the question?

On a flat earth how far is it from Santiago to Sydney?

If you are telling me on a globe it is 11,340 KMs, then I would agree it is 11,340 KMs on the non-euclidean flat earth map. I am not aware of this unit of measurement, but if you are providing accurate information, then my response will be correct.

Just as sailors not wise enough to use plane sailing instead used projections of a globe to create their maps when they harbored the incorrect belief the earth was round, the globe is merely a projection of the non-euclidean earth into a Euclidean context.

edited: for more information.

How far is it from Santiago to Sydney?

How far is it from Santiago to Sydney?

I've never measured it myself, but presuming I am receiving accurate information it would be the same distance as a globe predicts. The globe is just a projection of the non-euclidean map that can be used to dupe folks and fund globe companies, given the non-euclidean hypothesis is correct (which all evidence seems to hint).

Oh, it's also good for making slick logos that imply your company works 'world-wide.'

Your non-euclidean idea is one of the top 5 dumbest ideas ever presented on here.

Perhaps. It's unfortunate that it is so accurate, wouldn't you say sokarul?

Perhaps. It's unfortunate that it is so accurate, wouldn't you say sokarul?

I’m not sure if old Ludwig would agree with you on that score.

Quote from: John Davis on December 10, 2017, 02:52:06 PM

Perhaps. It's unfortunate that it is so accurate, wouldn't you say sokarul?

I’m not sure if old Ludwig would agree with you on that score.

Beethoven was a life long flatist. Most men of reason are. Which score are you referring to?

Perhaps. It's unfortunate that it is so accurate, wouldn't you say sokarul?

no.  You simply say the earth is flat but looks round. And now it has round earth measurements.

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 02:58:05 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 10, 2017, 02:52:06 PM

Perhaps. It's unfortunate that it is so accurate, wouldn't you say sokarul?

I’m not sure if old Ludwig would agree with you on that score.

Beethoven was a life long flatist. Most men of reason are. Which score are you referring to?

I have never met a single person of reason who thought the earth flat.

Perhaps. It's unfortunate that it is so accurate, wouldn't you say sokarul?

It's not accurate because it has to ignore any phenomena which travel beneath the surface of the earth. I think I have said this so many times now that virtually everyone on the forum has seen it.
Odd then, that you never address this incongruity that totally destroys your model, isn't it?

Was it just me or was it hard to tell exactly where he was panning the camera?  He started out with the stack and then was swinging wildly back and forth.

Quote from: John Davis on December 10, 2017, 03:00:19 PM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 02:58:05 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 10, 2017, 02:52:06 PM

Perhaps. It's unfortunate that it is so accurate, wouldn't you say sokarul?

I’m not sure if old Ludwig would agree with you on that score.

Beethoven was a life long flatist. Most men of reason are. Which score are you referring to?

I have never met a single person of reason who thought the earth flat.

I suggest you meet more people of reason then.

Quote from: John Davis on December 10, 2017, 02:52:06 PM

Perhaps. It's unfortunate that it is so accurate, wouldn't you say sokarul?

It's not accurate because it has to ignore any phenomena which travel beneath the surface of the earth. I think I have said this so many times now that virtually everyone on the forum has seen it.
Odd then, that you never address this incongruity that totally destroys your model, isn't it?

It doesn't ignore this at all. The fact that you think it does says that you don't understand the non-euclidean relative theory. However, this is aside from the issue at hand - that the surface of the earth and its geography is just non-euclidean. If I recall correctly, various versions of this have been around for the last 5 years starting with the collapsing state map and now culminating in its fruit the non-euclidean map.

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 10, 2017, 04:10:50 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 10, 2017, 03:00:19 PM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 02:58:05 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 10, 2017, 02:52:06 PM

Perhaps. It's unfortunate that it is so accurate, wouldn't you say sokarul?

I’m not sure if old Ludwig would agree with you on that score.

Beethoven was a life long flatist. Most men of reason are. Which score are you referring to?

I have never met a single person of reason who thought the earth flat.

I suggest you meet more people of reason then.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 10, 2017, 04:22:44 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 10, 2017, 02:52:06 PM

Perhaps. It's unfortunate that it is so accurate, wouldn't you say sokarul?

It's not accurate because it has to ignore any phenomena which travel beneath the surface of the earth. I think I have said this so many times now that virtually everyone on the forum has seen it.
Odd then, that you never address this incongruity that totally destroys your model, isn't it?

It doesn't ignore this at all. The fact that you think it does says that you don't understand the non-euclidean relative theory. However, this is aside from the issue at hand - that the surface of the earth and its geography is just non-euclidean. If I recall correctly, various versions of this have been around for the last 5 years starting with the collapsing state map and now culminating in its fruit the non-euclidean map.

My life is full of very intelligent, very reasonable people.  Not a single one believes in the flat earth fairy tale.  The only people I have met that do are either not very intelligent or very delusional.  The kind of people who ignore actual evidence and stick to their delusion at all cost.

They can't be that reasonable if they believe in the odd idea of a globe, but I suppose I'm making it a bit of a true Scotsman situation, so I'll digress.

Quote from: frenat on December 10, 2017, 05:31:37 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 10, 2017, 04:39:43 AM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 10, 2017, 02:38:55 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 09, 2017, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

When I say both directions I mean the direction outwards from the center and the gravity exercing a force downwards.

You appear to be describing a spherical Earth.

Why should I be describing spherical earth? If you put a little lego man on top of a disk and you spin it, the lego man will fall because of the centripedal force pulling OUTWARDS and GRAVITY pulling DOWNWARDS.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 09, 2017, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Garden hose on December 09, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

By the way, it doesn’t have sense of us being the only flat planet. How is it that when I look the planets with my (decent enough) amateur telescope I can observe how they spin throughout days.

Perhaps they spin throughout the days?

You still haven’t answered my question, how can I see that other planets spin LIKE A SPHERE WOULD but instead earth doesn’t spin like a sphere (from a FEer’s perspective)

Saturn has rings. Why doesn't Jupiter have rings? They are both planets.
Shouldn't they be the same?

Shouldn't Earth be a huge ball of gas like Jupiter and have rings like Saturn?

Jupiter does have rings.  As do Uranus and Neptune.

But Earth does not.
Are you now saying Earth is NOT like planets?

Excellently pointed out.

I do have to say this thread delivered on its title. There has been nothing but hilarity from camp round.