Honest question

  • 10 Replies
  • 2772 Views
Honest question
« on: May 28, 2018, 10:01:22 AM »
Did you guys ever actualy try to properly understand the round earth model?
It seems to me that all the flaws you guys find with the globe model can be properly explained by current science. And they have been.
So do you just ignore those explainations or dont you understand them?

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Honest question
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2018, 11:06:35 AM »
Did you guys ever actualy try to properly understand the round earth model?
It seems to me that all the flaws you guys find with the globe model can be properly explained by current science. And they have been.
So do you just ignore those explainations or dont you understand them?

I both don't ignore them, and I understand them. If you could bring up one in particular, I'd love to get to the bottom of this misconception.
If you ca,n't argue both sdes, you you understand neither

*

Gumwars

  • 793
  • +0/-0
  • A poke in your eye good sir...
Re: Honest question
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2018, 07:49:15 PM »
I both don't ignore them, and I understand them. If you could bring up one in particular, I'd love to get to the bottom of this misconception.

Where is Sigma Octanis?  The FE model shows Antarctica as a ring, which would mean the Southern Cross, or any constellation sufficiently south of the equator is paradoxically in more than one visible place at the same time.  We do not observe this in reality, therefore something is amiss. 
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Honest question
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2018, 08:18:37 PM »
I both don't ignore them, and I understand them. If you could bring up one in particular, I'd love to get to the bottom of this misconception.

Where is Sigma Octanis?  The FE model shows Antarctica as a ring, which would mean the Southern Cross, or any constellation sufficiently south of the equator is paradoxically in more than one visible place at the same time.  We do not observe this in reality, therefore something is amiss.
If you use the flat earth version of star/constellation names then it will be easier for us to answer your question!
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

MouseWalker

  • 934
  • +0/-0
Re: Honest question
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2018, 08:47:56 PM »
Did you guys ever actualy try to properly understand the round earth model?
It seems to me that all the flaws you guys find with the globe model can be properly explained by current science. And they have been.
So do you just ignore those explainations or dont you understand them?

I both don't ignore them, and I understand them. If you could bring up one in particular, I'd love to get to the bottom of this misconception.
The orbit of the Moon around Earth, and the consequences of it, tides.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4107
  • +1/-1
Re: Honest question
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2018, 09:20:24 PM »
If you use the flat earth version of star/constellation names then it will be easier for us to answer your question!

OK. I can certainly give that a try. Where are they cataloged?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

Teslaite

  • 46
  • +0/-0
Re: Honest question
« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2018, 02:15:31 AM »
John Davis,  "I both don't ignore them, and I understand them. If you could bring up one in particular, I'd love to get to the bottom of this misconception."

Your article;  https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat
 
and your reply; "Yes, quite a few over the years. The arguments around the antipodes for example. More modernly, every single round earth that claims people are in Australia knows that either they are hanging by their feet, or Australians must be a fabrication. "  from the thread: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=75765.30

suggest there are several things you don't understand.

?

SphericalEarther

  • 237
  • +0/-0
  • Programmer. I believe in logic.
Re: Honest question
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2018, 02:45:39 AM »
Did you guys ever actualy try to properly understand the round earth model?
It seems to me that all the flaws you guys find with the globe model can be properly explained by current science. And they have been.
So do you just ignore those explainations or dont you understand them?

I both don't ignore them, and I understand them. If you could bring up one in particular, I'd love to get to the bottom of this misconception.

Some things flat earthers do not understand in general:

The concept of gravity.
(most flat earthers can't understand that down is not a universal direction, but simply a human concept that on the globe would be towards the center of earth)

The rules of perspective.
(most flat earthers are lead to believe that perspective is not defined in math with absolute rules that we call a law, but instead it is just what we perceive with our eyes)

How water conforms to a spherical planet with gravity.
(water falls down, water finds its level, flat earthers can't understand how water can find its level by falling down on a spherical earth with gravity defining down)

That the atmosphere spins with the earth and aircrafts move through it.
(most flat earthers believe that aircrafts and helicopters should adjust their speed because of the spin of the earth)

We have stars going clockwise in the southern hemisphere.
(flat earthers tend to completely avoid this fact, or make up some magical property for this)

The sun does not change in apparent size, neither does the moon.
(no flat earther acknowledges this fact, as it goes against the flat earth model, and instead they claim the sun does change in size because they saw a video of it, which in fact does not show a size change because it shows a lot of glare instead)
« Last Edit: May 29, 2018, 04:13:42 AM by SphericalEarther »

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: Honest question
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2018, 06:03:13 AM »
I both don't ignore them, and I understand them. If you could bring up one in particular, I'd love to get to the bottom of this misconception.

Where is Sigma Octanis?  The FE model shows Antarctica as a ring, which would mean the Southern Cross, or any constellation sufficiently south of the equator is paradoxically in more than one visible place at the same time.  We do not observe this in reality, therefore something is amiss.
If you use the flat earth version of star/constellation names then it will be easier for us to answer your question!

WTF are these new "FE constellation names"? If you think this sort of old school semantics will get results these days, you need to get back up to speed with debate progress since you were last here.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Gumwars

  • 793
  • +0/-0
  • A poke in your eye good sir...
Re: Honest question
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2018, 04:05:46 PM »
I both don't ignore them, and I understand them. If you could bring up one in particular, I'd love to get to the bottom of this misconception.

Where is Sigma Octanis?  The FE model shows Antarctica as a ring, which would mean the Southern Cross, or any constellation sufficiently south of the equator is paradoxically in more than one visible place at the same time.  We do not observe this in reality, therefore something is amiss.
If you use the flat earth version of star/constellation names then it will be easier for us to answer your question!

What then, pray tell, is the FE name for the Southern Cross?  You are aware that this particular constellation has been around as long as humans have been ocean going. 
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Honest question
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2018, 04:39:46 PM »
Where is Sigma Octanis?  The FE model shows Antarctica as a ring, which would mean the Southern Cross, or any constellation sufficiently south of the equator is paradoxically in more than one visible place at the same time.  We do not observe this in reality, therefore something is amiss.
If you use the flat earth version of star/constellation names then it will be easier for us to answer your question!

What then, pray tell, is the FE name for the Southern Cross?  You are aware that this particular constellation has been around as long as humans have been ocean going.
;) Sometimes the feigned-ignorance of flat-earthers is mind-boggling ;).

Maybe he wants us to call the asterism "Southern Cross" the constellation "Crux", but the asterism "Southern Cross" is not the constellation "Crux".
The "Southern Cross" is only the five stars of the 49 total stars in the constellation "Crux" with a magnitude greater than 6.5.

Quote
The Southern Cross
The Southern Cross is one of the best known asterisms in the night sky, and the most familiar star pattern in the southern hemisphere.

Composed of five stars forming the shape of a cross, it is the most distinctive feature of the constellation Crux, the smallest constellation in the sky. The Southern Cross is notable for containing two bright stars, Acrux and Gacrux, which point the way to the Southern Celestial Pole.
See Constellation Guide, The Southern Cross.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Constellation Crux, Stars
Within the constellation's borders, there are 49 stars brighter than or equal to apparent magnitude 6.5. The four main stars that form the asterism are Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta Crucis. Also known as Acrux, Alpha Crucis is a triple star 321 light-years from Earth. Blue-tinged and magnitude 0.8 to the unaided eye, it has two close components of magnitude 1.3 and 1.8, as well as a wide component of magnitude 5. The two close components are resolved in a small amateur telescope and the wide component is readily visible in a pair of binoculars. Beta Crucis, called Mimosa, is a blue-hued giant of magnitude 1.3, 353 light-years from Earth. It is a Beta Cephei-type Cepheid variable with a variation of less than 0.1 magnitudes. Gamma Crucis, called Gacrux, is an optical double star. The primary is a red-hued giant star of magnitude 1.6, 88 light-years from Earth. The secondary is of magnitude 6.5, 264 light-years from Earth. Delta Crucis is a blue-white hued star of magnitude 2.8, 364 light-years from Earth. It is the dimmest of the Southern Cross stars. Like Beta it is a Beta Cepheid.

From: Crux, Stars