Final proof against flat earth model.

There is one piece of undeniable evidence against the flat earth model. Something that cannot be explained by "atmospheric conditions". Say you were taking a trip from Buenos Aries to Melbourne Australia, at the 35 south latitude. The trip is about twenty hours. Then you take a trip from Charlotte, NC to Tokyo Japan, at the 35 north latitude. Here is what that general path looks like, on the flat earth model:

The red trip is the first one, the blue is the second.
According to the flat earth model, the red trip should take significantly longer to fly, it is a longer distance. However, the blue trip is twenty hours, too. How can this be possible with the flat earth model? It cannot. The only possibility is the round earth model.


Argument over.

As a newly self-appointed flat-earther, I feel obligated to point out the inherent flaw in this idea.  See, you think the airline is unbiased, when there is, in fact, a conspiracy.

The reason it takes you the same amount of time is simple, the airplane flies more slowly to your hypothetical "35 n", and flies faster to "35 s".  Making it equal the same amount of time to fly the two distances.

I would think this would be clear, by you are obviously blinded by your zeal to defend a lie.

As a newly self-appointed flat-earther, I feel obligated to point out the inherent flaw in this idea. See, you think the airline is unbiased, when there is, in fact, a conspiracy.

The reason it takes you the same amount of time is simple, the airplane flies more slowly to your hypothetical "35 n", and flies faster to "35 s". Making it equal the same amount of time to fly the two distances.

I would think this would be clear, by you are obviously blinded by your zeal to defend a lie.

As someone of far superior intelligence to you, I feel obligated to point out the inherent flaw in your counter-point. See, you think on a level far below other people, and therefore your relatively slower brain processes are far more likely to take a detour from rational thought into the realm of "fantasy", wherein every other answer you respond with is, in fact, "a conspiracy".

Honestly, don't fall back on the same idiotic mantra to save your completely unfounded flat-earth ideal. Use science, fact, and logic, not invisible ghosts or a "conspiracy" that in no way gives anyone anything if executed. No benefit, no conspiracy, no dice.

Good game.

Post Script: Yeah, I read your post as to the reasons you're swapping sides and I wanted to mention that I understand the logic behind it, but you're still a [strikeout]commie[/strikeout] [strikeout]noob[/strikeout] flat-earther for now.  :wink:

As a newly self-appointed flat-earther, I feel obligated to point out the inherent flaw in this idea.  See, you think the airline is unbiased, when there is, in fact, a conspiracy.

The reason it takes you the same amount of time is simple, the airplane flies more slowly to your hypothetical "35 n", and flies faster to "35 s".  Making it equal the same amount of time to fly the two distances.

I would think this would be clear, by you are obviously blinded by your zeal to defend a lie.

Ok, so any contradictory point to your idea is an attempt by some government or corporation from keeping you from knowing the truth? :roll:

Now lets see why this idea is absloutely asinine using simple math. The distance from the north pole to the south pole is about 12,500 miles. Since there are 180 lines of latitude, divide 12,500 by 180 to get the distance between two lines. This comes out to be about 70 miles. Now, the 35 n line of latitude is 55 degrees away from the north pole. That means that the distance from the north pole to the 35 n line is 3,820 miles. To figure out the distance that this trip is, we need the distance around the equator, which is about 25,000 miles. The equator is located 6,250 miles away from the north pole. To get the distance of the 35 n trip, set up a ratio:
25,000/6,250=X/3,820
3,820*(25,000/6,250)=X
X=15,280
As for the 35 s line, the steps are essentially the same. The only difference is that the calculations are based on a flat earth model.
Distance from the north pole to the 35 s line=8,750
25,000/6,250=X/8,750
X=35,000
For a plane to fly 35,000 mph in 48 hours (approximation based on the fact that initial assumptions were done with places halfway across the globe) means that it was going:
730 mph, which is substantially faster than the maximum speed of a standard Boeing 747-400. It is impossible for the plane to make the trip in 48 hours, because the Boeings are also not able to sustain maximum speed for very long without overheating. The trip is impossible with the flat earth model.

As someone of far superior intelligence to you, I feel obligated to point out the inherent flaw in your counter-point. See, you think on a level far below other people, and therefore your relatively slower brain processes are far more likely to take a detour from rational thought into the realm of "fantasy", wherein every other answer you respond with is, in fact, "a conspiracy".

See ad hominem

And as for the conspiracy not giving anyone anything:

Johnson's beliefs are firmly grounded in the Bible. Many verses of the Old Testament imply that the earth is flat, but there's more to it than that. According to the New Testament, Jesus ascended up into heaven.

"The whole point of the Copernican theory is to get rid of Jesus by saying there is no up and no down," declares Johnson. "The spinning ball thing just makes the whole Bible a big joke."

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
The entire point is that (counter DaVinci Code style) all the world leaders actually hate religion, because it takes power away from their state powers, they all secretly want to be monarchs, but need to be proclaimed devine rulers for that to happen, so they need to get rid of the largest religion on the planet.

Post Script: Yeah, I read your post as to the reasons you're swapping sides and I wanted to mention that I understand the logic behind it, but you're still a [strikeout]commie[/strikeout] [strikeout]noob[/strikeout] flat-earther for now.  

Heh, no worries, I'd do the same.  It's considerably harder than I imagined it would be.

And, You undeducated morons (the person, I'm not insulting you), How do you know any of these numbers are true?  Have you ever actually measured them?  Your math would be correct, however as it's based off numbers that were fabricated to support a round earth, they will only naturally display that the earth is round, not because it is, but because that's what they've been formulated to do.

Quote

As someone of far superior intelligence to you, I feel obligated to point out the inherent flaw in your counter-point. See, you think on a level far below other people, and therefore your relatively slower brain processes are far more likely to take a detour from rational thought into the realm of "fantasy", wherein every other answer you respond with is, in fact, "a conspiracy".

See ad hominem

I'm not sure if this is an example of of ad hominem: he is criticising your ability to make a cogent remark based on your intelligence. Intelligence, or the lack thereof, is precisely what enables one to make a cogent remark, and people with a lack of intelligence might also be more inclined to believe a conspiracy theory. If it is true that you are stupid, therefore, his argument would be valid, since if you were clearly stupid, and demonstrably so, it would certainly be a legitimate way of showing that you can't make a good and accurate point, and that you might believe a conspiracy theory.

It would have been ad hominem if he had claimed that you were more likely to believe conspiracy theories because your dress sense were poor, or if you were, say, having an affair with your secretary. Since neither of these directly pertains to your likelihood of believing a conspiracy theory, that would be ad hominem.

Since he is, in part, criticising something which falls under the category of evident ability to make the remarks you are making, I am not sure that this is ad hominem.

It follows that the flaw in his argument is not concerned with ad hominem; it is that he has not demonstrated that you are in fact stupid.

The entire point is that (counter DaVinci Code style) all the world leaders actually hate religion, because it takes power away from their state powers, they all secretly want to be monarchs, but need to be proclaimed devine rulers for that to happen, so they need to get rid of the largest religion on the planet.

To make your point in this case you would have to demonstrate that religion (in particular the Catholic faith; I assume that this is what you refer to) is powerful enough to cause such disruption to the power of the state over its citizens that it warrants destruction. Although the state may have misgivings about another, external, power having some sway over the people, the actual sway might be quite minor, and in any case it may not be in the best interests of the state to actively campaign against the religion, even secretly, as a religion which is forced to go underground might prove even more troublesome, and more difficult to control, than one in the open. From this reasoning, it is arguable that a state would be content to allow a religion to exist as long as it does not directly threaten the authority of the state.

And, You undeducated morons (the person, I'm not insulting you), How do you know any of these numbers are true? Have you ever actually measured them? Your math would be correct, however as it's based off numbers that were fabricated to support a round earth, they will only naturally display that the earth is round, not because it is, but because that's what they've been formulated to do.

Finally, you have made an assumption about knowledge, in particular reference material, which is not sustainable. By assuming that the knowledge of distances on the Earth come from books and reference sources which are tainted, and therefore unapplicable based upon their association with the conspiracy theory, you have assumed that every publisher of such information has to be in on the conspiracy theory. This would have to include independent publishers of such information; the internet has allowed greater access and availablity of information coming from personal sources, and all of this would presumably have to be included also if it supports a round Earth theory.

The size of the conspiracy therefore encompasses not just governments and organisations, but independent publishers and individuals; this is hard to justify given the inherent nature of humans to disagree with one another. You have, in fact, made something like a claim for a total, global conspiracy against . . . just you. This is otherwise known as solipsism; there are many objections to this philisophical viewpoint which the margin of this post is too small to contain.

I'm not sure if this is an example of of ad hominem: he is criticising your ability to make a cogent remark based on your intelligence. Intelligence, or the lack thereof, is precisely what enables one to make a cogent remark, and people with a lack of intelligence might also be more inclined to believe a conspiracy theory. If it is true that you are stupid, therefore, his argument would be valid, since if you were clearly stupid, and demonstrably so, it would certainly be a legitimate way of showing that you can't make a good and accurate point, and that you might believe a conspiracy theory.

It is ad hominem, the premise of ad hominem is that one cannot disqualify another's argument based on anything other than the actual argument itself.  If a retard stated that E=mc^2, the fact that he is retarded wouldn't disqualify the statement.  Also, pointing out why someone believes something like this:

people with a lack of intelligence might also be more inclined to believe a conspiracy theory.

Is also a form of ad hominem, known as ad hominem circumstantial.

To make your point in this case you would have to demonstrate that religion (in particular the Catholic faith; I assume that this is what you refer to) is powerful enough to cause such disruption to the power of the state over its citizens that it warrants destruction. Although the state may have misgivings about another, external, power having some sway over the people, the actual sway might be quite minor, and in any case it may not be in the best interests of the state to actively campaign against the religion, even secretly, as a religion which is forced to go underground might prove even more troublesome, and more difficult to control, than one in the open. From this reasoning, it is arguable that a state would be content to allow a religion to exist as long as it does not directly threaten the authority of the state.

Ah ah, I don't actually have to prove this, because I could hypothetically state that my being unable to prove it merely shows how elaborate this conspiracy is.  Furthermore, it's already been shown that it's practically impossible to prove anything in the positive, and so the burden of disproof would then fall on your (the round-earthers) shoulders.  The mere fact that this is mildly feasible (governments not wanting to share power) and isn't inherently flawed, means I can postulate it as a theory, and it's up to you to disprove.

The size of the conspiracy therefore encompasses not just governments and organisations, but independent publishers and individuals; this is hard to justify given the inherent nature of humans to disagree with one another.

First off, I'd like it registered that I have a philosophical opposition to your statement that it is an inherent part of people's nature to disagree with one another.  Furthermore it would be fairly hard for you to substantiate your claim that people cannot, in any case, agree with each other enough that someone powerful could convince them to do something (in this case, cover up the truth)

You have, in fact, made something like a claim for a total, global conspiracy against . . . just you.

No simply a claim of a conspiracy of intellectuals against the less informed, not simply me.  And for the record, solpsism is a belief which states that one's self is the only thing that can be known with certainty and verified, and is a fairly valid statement, although there may be some philosophical problems with it, there is no imperical evidence against it.

Ok "You undeducated morons", since I've now decided to become 6strings "partner in crime", I will attempt to disprove your argument and show how this is easily explained on a flat earth.


The reason it takes the same amount of time is because the blue (inner) ring is closer to the magnetic center of the earth, wich means that the pull on the metal body of the plane will be greater near the center of the earth, and that makes the planes engines have to work harder to keep the nose pointed up and not be drawn down, and that in effect slows the plane. The plane flying all the way out by the south pole has much less magnetic pull on it and therfore moves faster.

wouldn't this mean that people would weigh more as they approached the north? considering that one "weighs" less as they approach higher altitudes, i would have to conclude that the gravity theory still holds strong. unless, of course, ALL of our scales have been calibrated to decrease in reading as we approach higher altitudes, to give the effect that would best support the round earth theory. this can be rebutted with the claim that spring scales have a "spring constant" and that it would be difficult to calibrate such a simple mechanism for such a complex operation. 6strings i really really really want you to respond to this. i know you can, take your time, kill it to death, please. i need entertainment and im sick of playing pokemon to pass the time.

A few things:
First off, I'd like to welcome Enraged Penguin to the awesomest team on the forum, because he rocks (come on kids, join up, all the cool kids are doing it), together we will weave a fabric of pseudo-truth so thick that not even the most powerful logic will be able to disprove it.

Secondly,

6strings i really really really want you to respond to this. i know you can, take your time, kill it to death, please.

I'm glad that your faith in me remains despite my recent, and continuing, bout with my own sanity.  However...

i need entertainment and im sick of playing pokemon to pass the time.

Die by fire.  While I understand using this forum for entertainment, I'm guilty of the same thing, but Pokemon?  Pokemon?!?!? ARRRRGH.  

Now I'll get on to the actual content,  so turn off your gameboys boys and girls, and rub the pikachus out of your eyes, because his could take a while.

wouldn't this mean that people would weigh more as they approached the north? considering that one "weighs" less as they approach higher altitudes, i would have to conclude that the gravity theory still holds strong.

What are you smoking?  Are you confusing latitude with altitude?  They aren't the same...I mean...this actually doesn't follow...We're talking about magnetism, which has no effect on gravity...so anyway...

However, you do raise a good point

unless, of course, ALL of our scales have been calibrated to decrease in reading as we approach higher altitudes, to give the effect that would best support the round earth theory. this can be rebutted with the claim that spring scales have a "spring constant" and that it would be difficult to calibrate such a simple mechanism for such a complex operation.

In my opinion, this ridiculous notion of flat earth gravity has been destroyed, descrated, then killed again.  Even from a flat earth point of view, the earth is not rushing upwards.  So, I'll take this chance to postulate my new and improved flat earth gravity theory:

Let's observe the facts:
A) We can conclude that there is a downward pull, towards the earth
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=905
(and yes, I do see the irony in using a thread in which I myself attacked flat earth gravity)
B) Gravity varies according to altitude.
So, we have a downward pull that gets stronger the closer we get to the ground.
Here's my theory:
It's derived from ancient oriental (as well as buddhist) beliefs.  These beliefs state that everything contains "qi", which is essentially energy.  Now, I myself have seen a Tai Chi sensei channel qi so that it pulled an apple that was a foot away into his hand.  The reason for this is that qi attracts qi, and qi in greater quantities exererts a greater pull.  Another interesting fact about qi is that it can be drawn best the closer one is to the ground.

From this I conclude that a great quantity of qi exists beneath the disk, pulling us down.  Either that, or individual gnomes chain us to the ground with invisible chains.

So, I've decided to take initiative and proclam this the new flat earth view of gravity, feel free to add on to it.

Hope I've entertained you TofuGlove, now go throw out your pokemon and find some women...or beer...or better yet, women AND beer.

Magic. Got it.

Seriously though, the basis of "qi" "chi" or whatever energy you want to call it focuses on the energy fields generated by life forms to explain these phenomena. The problem with the idea that qi is what causes the "earth disk" to move around in space is that qi almost exclusively requires a life force to be involved. Given that the majority of the planet is unliving elements, there would have to be an obscene amount of this mystical force coming from an unexplainable source acting upon every living thing with such power that it can, with us and every life force as a sort of "anchor," push, pull, or whatever else it can do to move us around in space.

My money is more on the gnomes, since A) Conspiracies seem to be immediately believed on this forum, and B) Things you can't see/fathom/explain beyond a shadow of a doubt do exist, also proven by this forum.

Magic. Got it.

No, not magic, qi.  A form of energy that has been demonstrated by numerous martial artists (ie: breaking multiple bricks with their foreheads), not some "magical" force.

Seriously though, the basis of "qi" "chi" or whatever energy you want to call it focuses on the energy fields generated by life forms to explain these phenomena.  The problem with the idea that qi is what causes the "earth disk" to move around in space is that qi almost exclusively requires a life force to be involved. Given that the majority of the planet is unliving elements, there would have to be an obscene amount of this mystical force coming from an unexplainable source

Actually, the predominant belief is that qi exists in and is gereated by all things, not simply living things.  Even a rock generates qi, which is why one can pull it towards them by generating enough.

every life force as a sort of "anchor," push, pull, or whatever else it can do to move us around in space.

We're not "moving around" in space, I'm postualting that there is a source of qi under, or perhaps inside, the disk (generated by the massive amount of matter on this planet), which draws all other qi towards it.  Explaining gravity.

Feel free to try to disprove it.

Qi is real in some form or another. It might not be an actual life force energy, but it does exist. Two years ago we got practically our entire grade level to experience it in one of it's simplest manifestations - the qi ball. This is a technique which allows you to form a ball of ki in your own hands. Google it, there are plenty of websites that explain it. We learned how to make them, and taught it to others. For those that at first had trouble, we were able to frop balls into their hands, and pretty much every reaction was along the lines of "whoa!". It may or may not have something to do with a flat earth, but you don't know what you're talking about until you've played catch across the room without a ball.

People, you're arguing with someone over whether the earth is round or not! And alot of you seem to be taking this whole thing quite seriously! Can't you see how silly this all is? If some JohnNoBrain wants to believe the earth is flat, LET 'EM!!!!! Who CARES??? HAHAHAHAHAHA

sorry, havent been here in a while, yeah when it looked like i was confusing latitude with altitude, it was in response to enraged penguin's reply, youll understand it if you look back at that. anways, yes i understand the differences in latitude and altitude, but enraged penguin's reply didnt seem to correlate so well. about the pokemon thing, i was trying to find an rpg that i could play without having to be at home, in my living room. so i had to steal my sister's game. whats worse is that its not even my own. god help me. even though i'm atheist. sorry for not capitalizing anything at all, its just a really bad habit from talking on aim...

and the thing about "qi" or "chi" can also be searched under "psi." whatever the case, im still bored.

and about what i smoke, it's weed and it's on occasion. not rare occasion, with intervals of a month or so between toking. i personally am not a fan of beer, so ill just stick to weed and whiskey. haha. and go back to the first page to read the other short reply i left. another thing you mightve mentioned is that the atmosphere is denser down here at sea level, so that may have a force on us to so extent. even though this force could be disproved using density and displacement explanations. stuff im really too tired to think about though. anyways, goodnight and i hope to see another reply.