Topic: Flat Earth - page 190. (Read 1095196 times)

Again, Joe is assuming everyone but himself is a liar and an idiot.  :/

Professional sailors would know the velocity of the wind based on that tautness of the sails.  Professional sailors would know the velocity they were travelling.  Professional sailors would know the distance they have traveled which would not match with a flat earth model.  Professional sailors made their living this way - if there were an extra thousand kilometers in the circumference of the earth, they would bill for it.
 
But lets have Joe, who is not a professional and has no science education, prove us all wrong with his beliefs.

Your approach would be from a different direction. Distances traveled would be different as well.


I mean, you can verify for yourself the shape of the earth with a decent model rocket or a weather balloon if you don't want to take anyone's word for it. Its not really obeying consensus, its agreeing with some of the basis of physics, but you can kind of confirm it for yourself. Just because some things hold true regardless of whether the earth is flat or a sphere, doesn't mean it proves the earth is flat. A lot of equations would still work even if the world was a point, or a toroid (actually a lot holds true as a toroid, probably far more than what works with the earth as flat)

Genuinely curious, the people here seem to put a lot of effort into this, far more than the half assed people I'd find results from if I just did a google search. What is your position on how "deep" the flat earth would be?

I'll throw out a counterpoint for someone to find a way to counter. Assuming the earth is flat, seismic activity from convection of the temp gradient of the layers of the earth would be in a different shape and distance from what is physically measured. Also, how do satellites work with the flat earth model? What keeps them from just falling out of the sky if they aren't in uniform circular motion(x,y,z)?

As I said in my previous post, I'm not belittling anyone. I have no intentions on changing your mind, and I won't feel any sort of gratification by proving that my understanding is better than yours. Rather, I'm curious about alternate understandings of things. In my astrophysics courses, we used to do pseudoscience all the time, and we'd occasionally stumble across some weird discovery about an equation that seemingly holds true. Then after writing a proof, we'd figure out it'd be a simplified version under an ideal condition or something. Those discoveries are worth something if we hit one that nobody else has yet before.

Proof the Vod way

OBEY authority and consensus. 

This is wrong.

You can circumnavigate the flat earth just as easily as the globe.  

Put a quarter on the floor.  Walk around it.  You just circumnavigated the quarter on a flat plane.

Because its fun to be a contrarian. I've never been able to understand why anyone would think the earth is flat. Its not like its hard to witness numerous low tech experiments to prove to yourself that its a sphere, however it is fun to play with pseudo science, so rather than get frustrated at perceived stupidity, I say let them have at it and maybe they'll accidentally stumble across something useful while playing with the math. You find an example where a model holds true with ridiculous parameters at one point and ignore the rest of the set of data to prove what you want. That's how you prove that the earth is flat. At the same time, in playing with those ridiculous parameters that no one has before because there is no reason to, you can find something actually useful (maybe?)

"Proof" is a waste of time on these people.  They can't understand it. 

Ferdinand Magellan's voyage proves that the earth is round.

Thank you for showing where you mess up, right here.

Let's say that you are standing right under the sun on a FE. And you measure its distance to be 3,000 miles away. Then you call your buddy by phone or radio. He is looking at the same sun on the same FE, but he is 3,000 miles away from you. This means he is about 4,250 miles away from the sun (triangulation), rather than the 3,000 miles away that you are. He's something like 1,250 miles further away from the sun than you are.

The sun should look smaller to your buddy, because he is so much farther away. But it doesn't. It looks the same size. This shows you that it isn't a FE that we are on.

GE standard distance from the sun is something like 93,000,000 miles away. If the sun is directly overhead on GE, and your buddy is 3,000 miles away from you, he's going to be a little further away from the sun than you, because of the curvature of the earth. But his distance won't be enough greater that it will make a difference. So, the sun will be a tiny bit smaller for him. But he will not be able to notice it because of the great 93,000,000 mile distance of the sun from both of you.

Now, you might want to say that some silly perspective thing makes the sun look the same size on FE. But this will throw off all kinds of other perspective things that you say.

You really need to get your FE science down all the way, and stop mixing all kinds of standard science with it. If you don't, you might as well go into magic to make your stuff work. Because that is all you are doing even though you may not know it.

If it isn't already, FE is becoming a cult for you.

Of all the proofs I've got this seems to be the best as all you have to do is, prove that atmospheric refraction applies to Eratosthenes experiments with additional sticks (or wells). This is the #1 goto proof the globalist have and leaves refraction as the only thing left to do; the difference in angle the globalist claims as proof is consistent with refraction. Once refraction is accounted for then the experiment agrees with a small moving Sun over a flat and motionless plane and, the globalist no longer has an argument as his proof has been co-opted.

Refraction can be established by co-opting the globalist's explanation of a selenelion eclipse.

Oh yeah.  Well you're stupid.  You should believe what others are telling you and stop putting up these stupid things called proof.  What difference does it make anyway.  There are plenty of smart .gov officials and scientists to tell us what to think.  They would not lie to us.  

-sorry nobatman I'm auditioning to be brought back into the globe circle.  How am I doing boys.  I think I hit most of the major comebacks.

FEB is awesome by the way
+1 for deciphering that 12,000 mile distance bullshit baddicker was saying.  I read it a few times and then just gave up.

The distance to the Sun can be measured with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles. BADecker has no response but bullshit, observations of Earth at 12,000 miles, adds an irrelevant point about perspective, fuck off. He can't deal with the fact refraction proves the Earth is flat when more sticks are added to Eratosthenes experiment. He can't deny refraction or the selenelion proves the Earth is flat.

The Earth is provably flat and motionless. The globalists need to swing from a rope.

---

---

When performing Eratosthenes experiment using three or more sticks (or wells), the stick directly under the Sun has no refraction due to its position, for all other sticks atmospheric refraction must be accounted for. Observation of the shadows is consistent with a plane, falsifies the globe and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat and motionless.

So, now we have 3 that the FE people can't answer.

1. Ship going over the horizon at a fairly near distance when the eye is only a couple inches over the horizon.

2. The Eratosthenes sticks disappear into the dark at a maximum of 6,000 miles from the stick under the sun.

3. The sun and moon should be a whole lot different in size than they are comparing directly overhead to, say, 10,000 miles distance... if they are FE smaller and closer.

No FE.

#1. No it doesn't. At 12,000 miles distance from the earth point where the sun is directly overhead, you can still see the poles on a FE... even though their shadows are long, and it might take a powerful telescope to see them. On a GE, the poles are on the other side of the globe. No matter how high the poles are (as many as hundreds of miles), their shadow is non-existent, because the poles are in the shadow of the earth. And if the poles are only a few feet high on a GE, their shadows are already gone by the time they are only 6,000 miles from the pole directly under the sun.

#2. This has nothing to do with proving the earth flat. Remember that a selenelion eclipse on a globe takes advantage of an atmosphere as much as thousands of miles thick. How can this be, when the practical atmosphere is only 20 miles thick, or so, straight up? Because you are looking horizontally through several thousand miles of atmosphere, rather than straight up through only 20 miles. Thousands of miles of gradually thinning atmosphere are easily enough for the required refraction.

#3G. The size of the moon, comparing its horizon size with its overhead size... the moon is slightly smaller on the horizon, due to its further distance from the earth than when it is overhead, and partially due to atmospheric refraction. Larger moon size at the horizon is an illusion.

#3F. The fact that, when the moon is on the horizon on FE, its distance relationship FE-horizon compared with GE-horizon is a lot less. Why? Because FE earth-to-moon is a lot less than GE earth-to-moon. In fact, in FE the top of the dome, if it is a hemisphere, would only be around 18,000 miles. The FE moon, being a lot smaller than the GE moon, would look a lot smaller on the FE horizon because of this relationship change. Since it doesn't... no FE.

^^^ Gaslighting.

Perhaps, you're just slow... so I've condensed my post so the two arguments that together prove the earth is flat are clearly outlined:






Both arguments need to be answered by the globalist, when he answers using the programed response defined by authority (he's unable to think for himself) his answers conflict in order maintain that Earth is a globe in both cases. He can't claim refraction isn't a factor and answer the second argument. He also can't claim refraction allows for both the Sun and Moon in sky together during an eclipse and answer the first argument. This simple exploit of the programed response given by the globalist proves we are on a plane; the globalist provides everything your proof needs.

He couldn't explain it before, so when you combine two of his ideas, they drop his whole flat earth idea right out from under him.

I don't blame him. Everybody needs a religion.

Loving it.....
Sun distances at Passover is at Equator 6400 km, 6900 km to Tropic Cancer, Capricorn, 5800 km at 45°
 You say what?


Have a look for yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN8yhUzqLCA

come debunk

For entertainment and a good laugh




more hilarious laughter, the ten highest, recurring highest tides location (3 in English Channel)




another fact



(currently traveling and, and....and limited time, power........)

^^^ gaslighting, trolling.

Apparently, common sense hurts some people.  :/

^^^ He tries to confuse the issue by trolling then referring to refraction as an aberration but, he knows trying to deny it just tightens the noose as the eclipse requires extreme refraction to lift it up above the horizon on a globe. With no other course of action he continues to gaslight with trolling.

Silly notbatman. He knows that if you add more sticks outside of the ones already there, they disappear over the horizon. And if they go far enough over the horizon, they disappear into the dark side of the earth globe. So he tries to distract with the idea of atmospheric aberration.



P.S.  Do you think he calls himself notbatman, because he is really a woman?