FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Flat earth believes - what the hell?
Flat earth believes - what the hell?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are not the strangest people on the internet by a long chalk. At least they are harmless." Hm the ones I've seen seemed pretty angry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay. Where the hell did these people come from? Why are they given this kind of platform and who else just wants to send them to space for them to check and hope they don't come back? "To be fair... I've never been to space. Just sayin   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay. Where the hell did these people come from? Why are they given this kind of platform and who else just wants to send them to space for them to check and hope they don't come back? "In a word... america | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are not the strangest people on the internet by a long chalk. At least they are harmless." Inciting many other people in to distrusting science is not what I'd call harmless  It's because of idiots like them that people don't believe climate change is being caused by humanity 
C | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you mean it isn't flat!? "Well bloody Holland is  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are not the strangest people on the internet by a long chalk. At least they are harmless. Inciting many other people in to distrusting science is not what I'd call harmless It's because of idiots like them that people don't believe climate change is being caused by humanity
C". That's really not true, I don't know anybody that won't fly on a plane because they "distrust" the science of whether it will take off or not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooops... I just fell off the edge... Helllllllp "Haha they apparently believe that the Antarctic actually surrounds the edge of the planet. We are in a done. The sun spins in a clockwise motion and the UN don't let people to explore ... Oh god... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are not the strangest people on the internet by a long chalk. At least they are harmless. Inciting many other people in to distrusting science is not what I'd call harmless It's because of idiots like them that people don't believe climate change is being caused by humanity
C.
That's really not true, I don't know anybody that won't fly on a plane because they "distrust" the science of whether it will take off or not "Dennis Bergkamp? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are not the strangest people on the internet by a long chalk. At least they are harmless. Inciting many other people in to distrusting science is not what I'd call harmless It's because of idiots like them that people don't believe climate change is being caused by humanity
C.
That's really not true, I don't know anybody that won't fly on a plane because they "distrust" the science of whether it will take off or not
Dennis Bergkamp?
". No that was turbulence in America!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are not the strangest people on the internet by a long chalk. At least they are harmless. Inciting many other people in to distrusting science is not what I'd call harmless It's because of idiots like them that people don't believe climate change is being caused by humanity
C"I really didn't want to go down this road but here goes... There are people in this world that believe that homosexuality is wrong and will kill people because of it. There are people in this world that believe that if you don't believe in their chosen deity, you are to be converted or wiped off the planet. There are people who believe that the right to bear arms is acceptable and that automatic weapons are suitable for children. There are people who believe that women are second class citizens, are effectively property and cannot have an opinion. Believing, even in the face of evidence, that the world is flat does not come close to some of the examples above. Harmless delusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are not the strangest people on the internet by a long chalk. At least they are harmless. Inciting many other people in to distrusting science is not what I'd call harmless It's because of idiots like them that people don't believe climate change is being caused by humanity
C
I really didn't want to go down this road but here goes...
There are people in this world that believe that homosexuality is wrong and will kill people because of it.
There are people in this world that believe that if you don't believe in their chosen deity, you are to be converted or wiped off the planet.
There are people who believe that the right to bear arms is acceptable and that automatic weapons are suitable for children.
There are people who believe that women are second class citizens, are effectively property and cannot have an opinion.
Believing, even in the face of evidence, that the world is flat does not come close to some of the examples above.
Harmless delusion.". To be honest it might be better if it was only children that had the automatic weapons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you mean it isn't flat!?
Well bloody Holland is "Holland! Thought the people who believed the earth was flat were bad enough but people who think Holland is a country, ffs!
Netherlands, ol' man! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it's a healthy debate. To the people who while heartedly believe the globe model can I just ask why? To place your belief in a science you don't understand is to have faith. Because a scientist says his convoluted mathematical equations prove his theory yet all your senses suggest otherwise is odd. Especially when mathematical equations can be used to prove counter claims. If people approach it with an open mind it is a more sensible debate than you may believe. We all wonder as kids why people in Australia don't fall off. We are told it's gravity, which is by the way only a theory. Yet this force drawing things to the centre of the earth which can hold humans and trillions of gallons of water upside down on a ball cannot hold or attract the positive mass of a helium balloon?" I agree with your first paragraph. Bit I've yet to hear a flat earth argument that can't be easily challenged. Including the helium balloon thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it's a healthy debate. To the people who while heartedly believe the globe model can I just ask why? To place your belief in a science you don't understand is to have faith. Because a scientist says his convoluted mathematical equations prove his theory yet all your senses suggest otherwise is odd. Especially when mathematical equations can be used to prove counter claims. If people approach it with an open mind it is a more sensible debate than you may believe. We all wonder as kids why people in Australia don't fall off. We are told it's gravity, which is by the way only a theory. Yet this force drawing things to the centre of the earth which can hold humans and trillions of gallons of water upside down on a ball cannot hold or attract the positive mass of a helium balloon?" A science I don't understand? Sorry, but physics is undenyable. He fact a flat plane of land could exist in a vacuum is not only implausible but just plain wrong. The earth is round due to, and this is not a joke, the potato equation. Whereby a body of mass no longer resembles the shape of a common spud when the mass of said body begins to elimate a force upon itself to enable it to become spherical in appearance. Science bitch  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Is that science bitch? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it's a healthy debate. To the people who while heartedly believe the globe model can I just ask why? To place your belief in a science you don't understand is to have faith. Because a scientist says his convoluted mathematical equations prove his theory yet all your senses suggest otherwise is odd. Especially when mathematical equations can be used to prove counter claims. If people approach it with an open mind it is a more sensible debate than you may believe. We all wonder as kids why people in Australia don't fall off. We are told it's gravity, which is by the way only a theory. Yet this force drawing things to the centre of the earth which can hold humans and trillions of gallons of water upside down on a ball cannot hold or attract the positive mass of a helium balloon?" . Most people don't give a rat's arse what shape the earth is or how "gravity" holds them upside down, they don't care why electricity doesn't fall out of plug sockets or what stops the moon from flying off through space... So to be honest your argument about faith is nonsense and I'm kinda thinking you probably heard it on a flat earth video?. Now the interesting bit, people like stuff that works, they don't care how as long as it does and that's where science and maths come in, people who know about this shit need it to work every time and it does. Like you wanna build say a motor to a lift on the Burj khalifa, you need to know the specifics of gravity acting upon it, if the "theory" was wrong your lift would be shit and "people" wouldn't be happy, they don't need to know the science or have faith coz it works!. And that's the main problem with a flat earth, the science don't work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it's a healthy debate. To the people who while heartedly believe the globe model can I just ask why? To place your belief in a science you don't understand is to have faith. Because a scientist says his convoluted mathematical equations prove his theory yet all your senses suggest otherwise is odd. Especially when mathematical equations can be used to prove counter claims. If people approach it with an open mind it is a more sensible debate than you may believe. We all wonder as kids why people in Australia don't fall off. We are told it's gravity, which is by the way only a theory. Yet this force drawing things to the centre of the earth which can hold humans and trillions of gallons of water upside down on a ball cannot hold or attract the positive mass of a helium balloon? A science I don't understand? Sorry, but physics is undenyable. He fact a flat plane of land could exist in a vacuum is not only implausible but just plain wrong. The earth is round due to, and this is not a joke, the potato equation. Whereby a body of mass no longer resembles the shape of a common spud when the mass of said body begins to elimate a force upon itself to enable it to become spherical in appearance. Science bitch "Physics is constantly changing as are it's rules. Theoretical physicists propose hypotheses and then try to find the maths to make them work. When they do it is written peer reviewed and hopefully some day proved by observation. To quote other people's work with no experience or proof of it is blind faith. How does it feel to be a science bitch? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some scientists believe global warming is causing the earth to change shape and bulge more in the middle. Maybe then it will eventually end up flat!
Is that science bitch?"It'll never end up flat. Temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere could, in theory slightly change the pressure excreted upon the surface of the planet however not to the extent it would overcome gravity and flatten it out. Look at planets with no atmosphere (e.g. Mars) vs planets with a hugely pressurised atmosphere like Venus (about 90 times that of earth) both very spherical | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some scientists believe global warming is causing the earth to change shape and bulge more in the middle. Maybe then it will eventually end up flat!
Is that science bitch?
It'll never end up flat. Temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere could, in theory slightly change the pressure excreted upon the surface of the planet however not to the extent it would overcome gravity and flatten it out. Look at planets with no atmosphere (e.g. Mars) vs planets with a hugely pressurised atmosphere like Venus (about 90 times that of earth) both very spherical "It's allegedly an oblate spheriod. Even the scientists can't agree what shape it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it's a healthy debate. To the people who while heartedly believe the globe model can I just ask why? To place your belief in a science you don't understand is to have faith. Because a scientist says his convoluted mathematical equations prove his theory yet all your senses suggest otherwise is odd. Especially when mathematical equations can be used to prove counter claims. If people approach it with an open mind it is a more sensible debate than you may believe. We all wonder as kids why people in Australia don't fall off. We are told it's gravity, which is by the way only a theory. Yet this force drawing things to the centre of the earth which can hold humans and trillions of gallons of water upside down on a ball cannot hold or attract the positive mass of a helium balloon? A science I don't understand? Sorry, but physics is undenyable. He fact a flat plane of land could exist in a vacuum is not only implausible but just plain wrong. The earth is round due to, and this is not a joke, the potato equation. Whereby a body of mass no longer resembles the shape of a common spud when the mass of said body begins to elimate a force upon itself to enable it to become spherical in appearance. Science bitch
Physics is constantly changing as are it's rules. Theoretical physicists propose hypotheses and then try to find the maths to make them work. When they do it is written peer reviewed and hopefully some day proved by observation.
To quote other people's work with no experience or proof of it is blind faith. How does it feel to be a science bitch? "The potato equation has been peer reviewed, studied and proved by observation. There's, to my knowledge, no alternative explanations, theory's or explanations as to why bodies of mass form spherical shapes. you obviously missed the "science botch" reference | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some scientists believe global warming is causing the earth to change shape and bulge more in the middle. Maybe then it will eventually end up flat!
Is that science bitch?
It'll never end up flat. Temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere could, in theory slightly change the pressure excreted upon the surface of the planet however not to the extent it would overcome gravity and flatten it out. Look at planets with no atmosphere (e.g. Mars) vs planets with a hugely pressurised atmosphere like Venus (about 90 times that of earth) both very spherical "That wasn't really my point 
But thanks for the reassurance.
As somebody pointed out above, science is always deniable. That's what scientists do.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. " Maths isn't faith. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. " . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. Maths isn't faith. " Yet like faith maths can be doctored to suit a given theory and 'prove' a hypothesis. To believe in another's writing whether they be religious or mathematical with no first hand proof is faith. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else "I don't care what shape it is either. There are mathematical equations which can prove the earth to be spherical as there are mathematical equations which can be used to prove the earth is flat. It's which mathematicians you chose to believe in. Which ones you have faith in. How do you choose when the maths works both ways? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else
I don't care what shape it is either. There are mathematical equations which can prove the earth to be spherical as there are mathematical equations which can be used to prove the earth is flat. It's which mathematicians you chose to believe in. Which ones you have faith in. How do you choose when the maths works both ways?
". Theories work when they predictablily and explain things well....a round earth does that a flat earth don't, that's why engineers use the theory of gravity, coz it's predictable and explains things well... To 99.9999% of people the argument is irrelevant, to people who wanna make things work it's quite important, so like sending men to the moon, your theories need to work like every time or it won't work and we sent men to the moon so that's good, the guys in the tin can at lift off probably said a few prayers like and if they had any sense it would be....I hope to fuck their right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else
I don't care what shape it is either. There are mathematical equations which can prove the earth to be spherical as there are mathematical equations which can be used to prove the earth is flat. It's which mathematicians you chose to believe in. Which ones you have faith in. How do you choose when the maths works both ways?
.
Theories work when they predictablily and explain things well....a round earth does that a flat earth don't, that's why engineers use the theory of gravity, coz it's predictable and explains things well... To 99.9999% of people the argument is irrelevant, to people who wanna make things work it's quite important, so like sending men to the moon, your theories need to work like every time or it won't work and we sent men to the moon so that's good, the guys in the tin can at lift off probably said a few prayers like and if they had any sense it would be....I hope to fuck their right "How did they get past that pesky Van Allen Radiation Belt back then? Seems odd as we can't do it now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else
I don't care what shape it is either. There are mathematical equations which can prove the earth to be spherical as there are mathematical equations which can be used to prove the earth is flat. It's which mathematicians you chose to believe in. Which ones you have faith in. How do you choose when the maths works both ways?
.
Theories work when they predictablily and explain things well....a round earth does that a flat earth don't, that's why engineers use the theory of gravity, coz it's predictable and explains things well... To 99.9999% of people the argument is irrelevant, to people who wanna make things work it's quite important, so like sending men to the moon, your theories need to work like every time or it won't work and we sent men to the moon so that's good, the guys in the tin can at lift off probably said a few prayers like and if they had any sense it would be....I hope to fuck their right
How did they get past that pesky Van Allen Radiation Belt back then? Seems odd as we can't do it now.". Who said we can't?. I'd say what five missions to the moon and 13 men prove that theory badly to be honest!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone tell us why there would be a cover up as to the shape of the earth? Why is it critical to those covering it up that we think it's a globe. Also who? Who is covering this up? And why would it be flat given all the other planets are not? Or are we saying all planets are flat now? I've heard some thick theories before but this one is pretty high up the list " There are scientists right now saying that we are a simulation. The mathematical likelihood is that we are a simulation created by a simulation. There is the multiverse a now widely accepted group of theories about multiple universes. Yet we can't live in the Trueman Show? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else
I don't care what shape it is either. There are mathematical equations which can prove the earth to be spherical as there are mathematical equations which can be used to prove the earth is flat. It's which mathematicians you chose to believe in. Which ones you have faith in. How do you choose when the maths works both ways?
.
Theories work when they predictablily and explain things well....a round earth does that a flat earth don't, that's why engineers use the theory of gravity, coz it's predictable and explains things well... To 99.9999% of people the argument is irrelevant, to people who wanna make things work it's quite important, so like sending men to the moon, your theories need to work like every time or it won't work and we sent men to the moon so that's good, the guys in the tin can at lift off probably said a few prayers like and if they had any sense it would be....I hope to fuck their right
How did they get past that pesky Van Allen Radiation Belt back then? Seems odd as we can't do it now..
Who said we can't?.
I'd say what five missions to the moon and 13 men prove that theory badly to be honest!.
"NASA say we can't, quite openly. Why haven't we been back since. Man's greatest achievement yet we've just rested on our laurels for the past 40 odd years. Every single other area of technological advance has been pursued with vigour yet we're happy with yeah we did that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else
I don't care what shape it is either. There are mathematical equations which can prove the earth to be spherical as there are mathematical equations which can be used to prove the earth is flat. It's which mathematicians you chose to believe in. Which ones you have faith in. How do you choose when the maths works both ways?
.
Theories work when they predictablily and explain things well....a round earth does that a flat earth don't, that's why engineers use the theory of gravity, coz it's predictable and explains things well... To 99.9999% of people the argument is irrelevant, to people who wanna make things work it's quite important, so like sending men to the moon, your theories need to work like every time or it won't work and we sent men to the moon so that's good, the guys in the tin can at lift off probably said a few prayers like and if they had any sense it would be....I hope to fuck their right
How did they get past that pesky Van Allen Radiation Belt back then? Seems odd as we can't do it now..
Who said we can't?.
I'd say what five missions to the moon and 13 men prove that theory badly to be honest!.
NASA say we can't, quite openly. Why haven't we been back since. Man's greatest achievement yet we've just rested on our laurels for the past 40 odd years. Every single other area of technological advance has been pursued with vigour yet we're happy with yeah we did that. ". Edmund Hillary didn't climb Everest every week just coz he did once?. It costs like a alot of money to do it, there's not alot there and the beaches are crap | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone tell us why there would be a cover up as to the shape of the earth? Why is it critical to those covering it up that we think it's a globe. Also who? Who is covering this up? And why would it be flat given all the other planets are not? Or are we saying all planets are flat now? I've heard some thick theories before but this one is pretty high up the list There are scientists right now saying that we are a simulation. The mathematical likelihood is that we are a simulation created by a simulation. There is the multiverse a now widely accepted group of theories about multiple universes. Yet we can't live in the Trueman Show? " That didn't answer my questions. Who is behind this flat Earth cover up and why? Or is the answer conveniently elusive? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else
I don't care what shape it is either. There are mathematical equations which can prove the earth to be spherical as there are mathematical equations which can be used to prove the earth is flat. It's which mathematicians you chose to believe in. Which ones you have faith in. How do you choose when the maths works both ways?
.
Theories work when they predictablily and explain things well....a round earth does that a flat earth don't, that's why engineers use the theory of gravity, coz it's predictable and explains things well... To 99.9999% of people the argument is irrelevant, to people who wanna make things work it's quite important, so like sending men to the moon, your theories need to work like every time or it won't work and we sent men to the moon so that's good, the guys in the tin can at lift off probably said a few prayers like and if they had any sense it would be....I hope to fuck their right
How did they get past that pesky Van Allen Radiation Belt back then? Seems odd as we can't do it now..
Who said we can't?.
I'd say what five missions to the moon and 13 men prove that theory badly to be honest!.
NASA say we can't, quite openly. Why haven't we been back since. Man's greatest achievement yet we've just rested on our laurels for the past 40 odd years. Every single other area of technological advance has been pursued with vigour yet we're happy with yeah we did that. .
Edmund Hillary didn't climb Everest every week just coz he did once?.
It costs like a alot of money to do it, there's not alot there and the beaches are crap"From the holiday snaps I agree it looks shit. But it doesn't make any sense. It was very convinient to beat those pesky Ruskies to it at the height of the cold war don't you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone tell us why there would be a cover up as to the shape of the earth? Why is it critical to those covering it up that we think it's a globe. Also who? Who is covering this up? And why would it be flat given all the other planets are not? Or are we saying all planets are flat now? I've heard some thick theories before but this one is pretty high up the list There are scientists right now saying that we are a simulation. The mathematical likelihood is that we are a simulation created by a simulation. There is the multiverse a now widely accepted group of theories about multiple universes. Yet we can't live in the Trueman Show? That didn't answer my questions. Who is behind this flat Earth cover up and why? Or is the answer conveniently elusive? " The globe earth only became regarded as the dominant theory fairly recently in human history. If you run the economies and governments of the world and you want to control your people what better way than to convince them they are but a speck of carbon existing on a ball doing laps of a bigger ball, doing laps of bigger balls, doing laps of bigger balls. Convince people they are nothing and controlling them is much easier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone tell us why there would be a cover up as to the shape of the earth? Why is it critical to those covering it up that we think it's a globe. Also who? Who is covering this up? And why would it be flat given all the other planets are not? Or are we saying all planets are flat now? I've heard some thick theories before but this one is pretty high up the list There are scientists right now saying that we are a simulation. The mathematical likelihood is that we are a simulation created by a simulation. There is the multiverse a now widely accepted group of theories about multiple universes. Yet we can't live in the Trueman Show? That didn't answer my questions. Who is behind this flat Earth cover up and why? Or is the answer conveniently elusive? The globe earth only became regarded as the dominant theory fairly recently in human history. If you run the economies and governments of the world and you want to control your people what better way than to convince them they are but a speck of carbon existing on a ball doing laps of a bigger ball, doing laps of bigger balls, doing laps of bigger balls. Convince people they are nothing and controlling them is much easier. " So if we knew it was flat...we'd not be controllable? We allow ourselves to be controlled because we think the earth is a sphere? Ridiculous | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else
I don't care what shape it is either. There are mathematical equations which can prove the earth to be spherical as there are mathematical equations which can be used to prove the earth is flat. It's which mathematicians you chose to believe in. Which ones you have faith in. How do you choose when the maths works both ways?
.
Theories work when they predictablily and explain things well....a round earth does that a flat earth don't, that's why engineers use the theory of gravity, coz it's predictable and explains things well... To 99.9999% of people the argument is irrelevant, to people who wanna make things work it's quite important, so like sending men to the moon, your theories need to work like every time or it won't work and we sent men to the moon so that's good, the guys in the tin can at lift off probably said a few prayers like and if they had any sense it would be....I hope to fuck their right
How did they get past that pesky Van Allen Radiation Belt back then? Seems odd as we can't do it now..
Who said we can't?.
I'd say what five missions to the moon and 13 men prove that theory badly to be honest!.
NASA say we can't, quite openly. Why haven't we been back since. Man's greatest achievement yet we've just rested on our laurels for the past 40 odd years. Every single other area of technological advance has been pursued with vigour yet we're happy with yeah we did that. .
Edmund Hillary didn't climb Everest every week just coz he did once?.
It costs like a alot of money to do it, there's not alot there and the beaches are crap
From the holiday snaps I agree it looks shit. But it doesn't make any sense. It was very convinient to beat those pesky Ruskies to it at the height of the cold war don't you think? ". There'd both got the expertise but in the end they just spent a fuck more money than the Russians could afford to... Or to put it another way if you could come up with 20 trillion dollars tomorrow they could probably get you on Mars within two years... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone tell us why there would be a cover up as to the shape of the earth? Why is it critical to those covering it up that we think it's a globe. Also who? Who is covering this up? And why would it be flat given all the other planets are not? Or are we saying all planets are flat now? I've heard some thick theories before but this one is pretty high up the list There are scientists right now saying that we are a simulation. The mathematical likelihood is that we are a simulation created by a simulation. There is the multiverse a now widely accepted group of theories about multiple universes. Yet we can't live in the Trueman Show? That didn't answer my questions. Who is behind this flat Earth cover up and why? Or is the answer conveniently elusive? The globe earth only became regarded as the dominant theory fairly recently in human history. If you run the economies and governments of the world and you want to control your people what better way than to convince them they are but a speck of carbon existing on a ball doing laps of a bigger ball, doing laps of bigger balls, doing laps of bigger balls. Convince people they are nothing and controlling them is much easier. " Got any names? Specific leaders? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else
I don't care what shape it is either. There are mathematical equations which can prove the earth to be spherical as there are mathematical equations which can be used to prove the earth is flat. It's which mathematicians you chose to believe in. Which ones you have faith in. How do you choose when the maths works both ways?
.
Theories work when they predictablily and explain things well....a round earth does that a flat earth don't, that's why engineers use the theory of gravity, coz it's predictable and explains things well... To 99.9999% of people the argument is irrelevant, to people who wanna make things work it's quite important, so like sending men to the moon, your theories need to work like every time or it won't work and we sent men to the moon so that's good, the guys in the tin can at lift off probably said a few prayers like and if they had any sense it would be....I hope to fuck their right
How did they get past that pesky Van Allen Radiation Belt back then? Seems odd as we can't do it now..
Who said we can't?.
I'd say what five missions to the moon and 13 men prove that theory badly to be honest!.
NASA say we can't, quite openly. Why haven't we been back since. Man's greatest achievement yet we've just rested on our laurels for the past 40 odd years. Every single other area of technological advance has been pursued with vigour yet we're happy with yeah we did that. .
Edmund Hillary didn't climb Everest every week just coz he did once?.
It costs like a alot of money to do it, there's not alot there and the beaches are crap
From the holiday snaps I agree it looks shit. But it doesn't make any sense. It was very convinient to beat those pesky Ruskies to it at the height of the cold war don't you think? . There'd both got the expertise but in the end they just spent a fuck more money than the Russians could afford to... Or to put it another way if you could come up with 20 trillion dollars tomorrow they could probably get you on Mars within two years...
"Yeah right enough that'll probably be it. We'll be on Mars soon enough. Show that Kim Jong Un what we could strap a warhead to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument about faith isn't nonsense. If you personally don't understand how something works but are prepared to accept what someone else has written as an explanation that my friend is faith. Whether you chose to have faith in a holy book, a scientific journal or whatever. If you believe something you have no first hand experience of you have faith. Nowt wrong with it just saying it as it is. . No your mistaken on what I wrote, you don't need faith coz it works, I don't need faith in the science of aeroplanes they work, I don't need faith in the explosive capability of fuel, it just goes bang when they say it will every time. You need faith to explain your flat earth, I don't care what shape it is, neither does anybody else
I don't care what shape it is either. There are mathematical equations which can prove the earth to be spherical as there are mathematical equations which can be used to prove the earth is flat. It's which mathematicians you chose to believe in. Which ones you have faith in. How do you choose when the maths works both ways?
.
Theories work when they predictablily and explain things well....a round earth does that a flat earth don't, that's why engineers use the theory of gravity, coz it's predictable and explains things well... To 99.9999% of people the argument is irrelevant, to people who wanna make things work it's quite important, so like sending men to the moon, your theories need to work like every time or it won't work and we sent men to the moon so that's good, the guys in the tin can at lift off probably said a few prayers like and if they had any sense it would be....I hope to fuck their right
How did they get past that pesky Van Allen Radiation Belt back then? Seems odd as we can't do it now..
Who said we can't?.
I'd say what five missions to the moon and 13 men prove that theory badly to be honest!.
NASA say we can't, quite openly. Why haven't we been back since. Man's greatest achievement yet we've just rested on our laurels for the past 40 odd years. Every single other area of technological advance has been pursued with vigour yet we're happy with yeah we did that. .
Edmund Hillary didn't climb Everest every week just coz he did once?.
It costs like a alot of money to do it, there's not alot there and the beaches are crap
From the holiday snaps I agree it looks shit. But it doesn't make any sense. It was very convinient to beat those pesky Ruskies to it at the height of the cold war don't you think? . There'd both got the expertise but in the end they just spent a fuck more money than the Russians could afford to... Or to put it another way if you could come up with 20 trillion dollars tomorrow they could probably get you on Mars within two years...
Yeah right enough that'll probably be it. We'll be on Mars soon enough. Show that Kim Jong Un what we could strap a warhead to. ". NASAs budget for space exploration is like a couple of billion dollars?. It's not alot in the grand scheme of things and certainty not 20 trillion dollars. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't wanna be the party pooper but pretty much the scientific community has suspected the earth is round for 2300 years, the ancient Greeks even calculated the circumference pretty accurately 2000 years ago" Eratosthenes' experiment and results can be used to prove the earth is flat if the sun is considered to be closer and with a smaller diameter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay. Where the hell did these people come from? Why are they given this kind of platform and who else just wants to send them to space for them to check and hope they don't come back?
In a word... america"actually they are from pretty much every corner of the globe not just the USA | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is only earth flat and not the other planets? They can be observed rotating from here..clearly spheres..why would space throw a single disc among spheres?" So because you see spheres around you. And do you actually see spheres yourself? That means you are on a sphere by default? In your life have you ever experienced anything to indicate that the earth is spherical? You personally? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't wanna be the party pooper but pretty much the scientific community has suspected the earth is round for 2300 years, the ancient Greeks even calculated the circumference pretty accurately 2000 years ago Eratosthenes' experiment and results can be used to prove the earth is flat if the sun is considered to be closer and with a smaller diameter. " . Yes I agree it could but it wouldn't explain the rest as well as a round earth does, predicting stuff is what a good theory should do, the Greeks predicted that the circumference would be 25,000 miles and they weren't far off coz a mate of mine cycled round the earth a few years back and he got a puncture in Brighton and abandoned it but we reckon if it hadn't been for that puncture he would have got 26,456 miles on his odometer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's an interesting thing but just made up for a laugh as no one actually believes the earth flat" Many people genuinely do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is only earth flat and not the other planets? They can be observed rotating from here..clearly spheres..why would space throw a single disc among spheres? So because you see spheres around you. And do you actually see spheres yourself? That means you are on a sphere by default? In your life have you ever experienced anything to indicate that the earth is spherical? You personally? " yes, observe through a telescope a planet and watch it rotate, amateurs can see this so unless the cover up extends to every single person on the planet with a telescope then yes, hey are definitely spherical. Earth is he same shape, governed by the same laws of physics so it's round. And yes..I have seen the curvature with my own eyes many times..most people have. Go up in a plane, looks precisely like your above a sphere and not a disk | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is only earth flat and not the other planets? They can be observed rotating from here..clearly spheres..why would space throw a single disc among spheres? So because you see spheres around you. And do you actually see spheres yourself? That means you are on a sphere by default? In your life have you ever experienced anything to indicate that the earth is spherical? You personally? yes, observe through a telescope a planet and watch it rotate, amateurs can see this so unless the cover up extends to every single person on the planet with a telescope then yes, hey are definitely spherical. Earth is he same shape, governed by the same laws of physics so it's round. And yes..I have seen the curvature with my own eyes many times..most people have. Go up in a plane, looks precisely like your above a sphere and not a disk "So through a telescope you actually see a sphere? You're 100% confident what you see is a 3 dimensional sphere? And that obviously means you're on one too . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! " Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. " I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is only earth flat and not the other planets? They can be observed rotating from here..clearly spheres..why would space throw a single disc among spheres? So because you see spheres around you. And do you actually see spheres yourself? That means you are on a sphere by default? In your life have you ever experienced anything to indicate that the earth is spherical? You personally? yes, observe through a telescope a planet and watch it rotate, amateurs can see this so unless the cover up extends to every single person on the planet with a telescope then yes, hey are definitely spherical. Earth is he same shape, governed by the same laws of physics so it's round. And yes..I have seen the curvature with my own eyes many times..most people have. Go up in a plane, looks precisely like your above a sphere and not a disk
So through a telescope you actually see a sphere? You're 100% confident what you see is a 3 dimensional sphere? And that obviously means you're on one too."You, watch them turning...get a ball ant turn it around and around, looks like that
This is so stupid...good luck dude, you've been hilarious but I'm not validating this joke any more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some "I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye. Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The earth is a cube. My evidence is this: Mountains are the corners, and they're distorted by your view of the world due to the gasses that fill the atmosphere. If you climb a mountain, the reason the air is thinner is because you're right on the point of the cube which is further away from the breathable air produced by grass and bumble bees. " Holds just as much water as a theory | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The earth is a cube. My evidence is this: Mountains are the corners, and they're distorted by your view of the world due to the gasses that fill the atmosphere. If you climb a mountain, the reason the air is thinner is because you're right on the point of the cube which is further away from the breathable air produced by grass and bumble bees. Holds just as much water as a theory " Or as much as clings to the outside of a ball. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay. Where the hell did these people come from? Why are they given this kind of platform and who else just wants to send them to space for them to check and hope they don't come back?
In a word... america" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A friend of mine tells me that if I stand on the shore and watch a ship sail into the distance,when it disappears from view that's not because it has dipped over the horizon,it's because that's just how far the human eye can see. He didn't explain how it is that if I stood on a tall step ladder and watched the ship,I could still see it for longer than if I stayed at sea level. I guess I'll have to stick with the crazy wild theory that the earth is spherical,to explain that. Now,can anyone come up with a reasonable explanation of why the Australians have Christmas in summer?" Or why I can't see the Eiffel Tower through this very powerful telescope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NASA say we can't, quite openly. Why haven't we been back since. Man's greatest achievement yet we've just rested on our laurels for the past 40 odd years. Every single other area of technological advance has been pursued with vigour yet we're happy with yeah we did that. " We didn't go back because those controlling the budget were really disappointed to find the moon was not made of cheese, so what is the point
Also health and safety at work was less of an issue in the 60's and at that time the belt wasn't full of high speed bolts and other crap that fell off the Apollo space craft.
P.s. the world is actually a series of triangles like a toblerone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it's a healthy debate. To the people who while heartedly believe the globe model can I just ask why? To place your belief in a science you don't understand is to have faith. Because a scientist says his convoluted mathematical equations prove his theory yet all your senses suggest otherwise is odd. Especially when mathematical equations can be used to prove counter claims. If people approach it with an open mind it is a more sensible debate than you may believe. We all wonder as kids why people in Australia don't fall off. We are told it's gravity, which is by the way only a theory. Yet this force drawing things to the centre of the earth which can hold humans and trillions of gallons of water upside down on a ball cannot hold or attract the positive mass of a helium balloon?"
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is my point though. You can find mathematical evidence which proves the earth is flat. It gives the exact same result as the initial experiment which led to the globe theory. Therfore which one should you choose to believe? All through the arguments there can be scientific proofs from the other side refuting a given stance. I'm not actually a flat earther but I find the debate interesting. If you look at it with an open mind, which is very difficult because we are brought up to be so indoctrinated, it is a very intriguing debate. Everything you physically experience suggests a flat plane. For a huge majority of the planet to believe it is a ball is to put faith in someone else's word. As the reality is we don't truly understand and can never know. " I love this and agree. Especially your last sentence.
I hope we're not just some massive game of The Sims. But who can prove we're not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are bonkers along with the people who think we didn't go to the moon and those who believe contrails from planes contain mind altering drugs. There's no sound scientific evidence to back up any of this, yet the truth has all the evidence you need. You just can't argue or reason with them but I like winding them up "You're wasting your breath, I save that for Jehova's Witnesses  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are not the strangest people on the internet by a long chalk. At least they are harmless." They are Scum who cover every roadside in spray paint Graffiti, costing the tax payer money and risking lives as they spray paint many road signs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't wanna be the party pooper but pretty much the scientific community has suspected the earth is round for 2300 years, the ancient Greeks even calculated the circumference pretty accurately 2000 years ago Eratosthenes' experiment and results can be used to prove the earth is flat if the sun is considered to be closer and with a smaller diameter. " How so? Eratosthenes Experiments and observations resulted in him concluding the earth was spherical. So how do the numbers prove otherwise? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The last word on this subject is that I belong to 'The Flat Earth Society'. We are a very popular and busy group, we have members all around the World. "Don't you mean "all across the world"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The last word on this subject is that I belong to 'The Flat Earth Society'. We are a very popular and busy group, we have members all around the World.
Don't you mean "all across the world"? "Or in every corner of the globe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are not the strangest people on the internet by a long chalk. At least they are harmless. Inciting many other people in to distrusting science is not what I'd call harmless It's because of idiots like them that people don't believe climate change is being caused by humanity
C" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay. Where the hell did these people come from? Why are they given this kind of platform and who else just wants to send them to space for them to check and hope they don't come back? "But they believe in the Internet and communications, which are powered by global positioning satellites | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay. Where the hell did these people come from? Why are they given this kind of platform and who else just wants to send them to space for them to check and hope they don't come back?
But they believe in the Internet and communications, which are powered by global positioning satellites "It's a conspiracy I tells ya!! The internet is a myth and we're all just mistaken | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't wanna be the party pooper but pretty much the scientific community has suspected the earth is round for 2300 years, the ancient Greeks even calculated the circumference pretty accurately 2000 years ago Eratosthenes' experiment and results can be used to prove the earth is flat if the sun is considered to be closer and with a smaller diameter. How so? Eratosthenes Experiments and observations resulted in him concluding the earth was spherical. So how do the numbers prove otherwise?" Based upon a proposed distance to and size of the sun. If these figures are adjusted the results of his expirement can be replicated exactly on a flat plane. The same experiment with the same results can be used to 'prove' two theories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The last word on this subject is that I belong to 'The Flat Earth Society'. We are a very popular and busy group, we have members all around the World. "Shouldn't that be ACROSS the world if it's flat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
. In other words , I don't give a fuck !! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't wanna be the party pooper but pretty much the scientific community has suspected the earth is round for 2300 years, the ancient Greeks even calculated the circumference pretty accurately 2000 years ago Eratosthenes' experiment and results can be used to prove the earth is flat if the sun is considered to be closer and with a smaller diameter. How so? Eratosthenes Experiments and observations resulted in him concluding the earth was spherical. So how do the numbers prove otherwise? Based upon a proposed distance to and size of the sun. If these figures are adjusted the results of his expirement can be replicated exactly on a flat plane. The same experiment with the same results can be used to 'prove' two theories. " If you change the data it's not the same experiment, only the same method. And unless the distance of the sun from the earth is around the distance of London to Tenerife the 'proof' falls flat on its ass. This would also mean the sun would need to be significantly smaller than the earth, not the 1.3million times greater volume it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've flown on Concorde at 68'000 ft, where you CAN see the curvature of the earth. Does that work well enough? " Of course it does .These people are loony tunes dude . I've flew Concorde too in 1990 to New York and saw exactly the same . I honestly don't know where these people come from !! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You ask where they've come from OP?? They've been around a few thousand years longer than anyone who believes it is round to be fair. The bible says "and so God placed the glass firmament over the earth seperating the waters above from the waters below" .. Or something along those lines and the same was said in Mesopotamian mythology. I'd imagine the world is round and the sun really is millions of miles away, its a good model. But I've never been to space to see for myself. And its true that if you tried to explore or fly far south in Antarctica youd be greeted by military. I do believe there's a lot in this world that we're not being told. And maybe we are living in some Truman Show type of reality. None of us can actually say for sure so try to keep an open mind. A closed one may doom you forever "well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've flown on Concorde at 68'000 ft, where you CAN see the curvature of the earth. Does that work well enough? Of course it does .These people are loony tunes dude . I've flew Concorde too in 1990 to New York and saw exactly the same . I honestly don't know where these people come from !!" Technically it could be flat with a curve. Like a soup bowl upside down haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've flown on Concorde at 68'000 ft, where you CAN see the curvature of the earth. Does that work well enough? " Nope because you can't. It's no different from the folks who assume they did at 36,000 ft. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch of a thing to let go of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wait. Are you trying to say the world isn't flat and sits on the back of a Turtle carried on the back of 4 Elephants floating through space? You'll be telling me this isn't the Century of the Fruitbat next!!! Pull the other one." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry. "Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've flown on Concorde at 68'000 ft, where you CAN see the curvature of the earth. Does that work well enough? Nope because you can't. It's no different from the folks who assume they did at 36,000 ft. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch of a thing to let go of. " I did not assume anything . Seriously mate do you really believe this ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't wanna be the party pooper but pretty much the scientific community has suspected the earth is round for 2300 years, the ancient Greeks even calculated the circumference pretty accurately 2000 years ago Eratosthenes' experiment and results can be used to prove the earth is flat if the sun is considered to be closer and with a smaller diameter. How so? Eratosthenes Experiments and observations resulted in him concluding the earth was spherical. So how do the numbers prove otherwise? Based upon a proposed distance to and size of the sun. If these figures are adjusted the results of his expirement can be replicated exactly on a flat plane. The same experiment with the same results can be used to 'prove' two theories. If you change the data it's not the same experiment, only the same method. And unless the distance of the sun from the earth is around the distance of London to Tenerife the 'proof' falls flat on its ass. This would also mean the sun would need to be significantly smaller than the earth, not the 1.3million times greater volume it is. " The experiment was used and is used as empirical proof of a sherical earth. The same results can be mathematically replicated yes if the data is changed. One lot theorise the earth is round and the sun is almost 93 millions away. The experiment's results 'prove' this to be true. Others theorize that the sun is 3000 miles away and much smaller. The same results also 'prove' this theory correct. It's all a case of who you pin your belief in. I'm not saying one way or another. I'm just saying from the physical evidence I can see and feel one makes sense one doesn't. I'm not saying that means it's correct. I'm just not so brash as down right exclude any possibility without having the decency to actually look into it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've flown on Concorde at 68'000 ft, where you CAN see the curvature of the earth. Does that work well enough? Nope because you can't. It's no different from the folks who assume they did at 36,000 ft. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch of a thing to let go of. I did not assume anything . Seriously mate do you really believe this ??" I'm unsure. It's no stranger than believing nothing exploded into everything. And that we now live on a ball rotating at 1000 mph at the equator, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, in a solar system moving at 515,000 mph. None of which we have any notion of at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry.
Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help."Bring your light source closer to the dinner plate and put Australia where it is on the UN map and see the same results. Clears nothing up. You are simply using an experiment to recreate your belief. When the same effect can be recreated just as easily in another model you can't be so sure yours is correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't wanna be the party pooper but pretty much the scientific community has suspected the earth is round for 2300 years, the ancient Greeks even calculated the circumference pretty accurately 2000 years ago Eratosthenes' experiment and results can be used to prove the earth is flat if the sun is considered to be closer and with a smaller diameter. How so? Eratosthenes Experiments and observations resulted in him concluding the earth was spherical. So how do the numbers prove otherwise? Based upon a proposed distance to and size of the sun. If these figures are adjusted the results of his expirement can be replicated exactly on a flat plane. The same experiment with the same results can be used to 'prove' two theories. If you change the data it's not the same experiment, only the same method. And unless the distance of the sun from the earth is around the distance of London to Tenerife the 'proof' falls flat on its ass. This would also mean the sun would need to be significantly smaller than the earth, not the 1.3million times greater volume it is. The experiment was used and is used as empirical proof of a sherical earth. The same results can be mathematically replicated yes if the data is changed. One lot theorise the earth is round and the sun is almost 93 millions away. The experiment's results 'prove' this to be true. Others theorize that the sun is 3000 miles away and much smaller. The same results also 'prove' this theory correct. It's all a case of who you pin your belief in. I'm not saying one way or another. I'm just saying from the physical evidence I can see and feel one makes sense one doesn't. I'm not saying that means it's correct. I'm just not so brash as down right exclude any possibility without having the decency to actually look into it. " Brash? Decency? I've just posted half a dozen posts regarding the whole situation that I recall off the top of my head. I have looked into it. So you're telling me the sun is 3000 (it's actually more like 2000 in the flat earth model) away then. So how do you explain facts like mercury and Venus being seen traveling between the sun and the earth? Or are you suggesting these planets or actually tennis balls? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't wanna be the party pooper but pretty much the scientific community has suspected the earth is round for 2300 years, the ancient Greeks even calculated the circumference pretty accurately 2000 years ago Eratosthenes' experiment and results can be used to prove the earth is flat if the sun is considered to be closer and with a smaller diameter. How so? Eratosthenes Experiments and observations resulted in him concluding the earth was spherical. So how do the numbers prove otherwise? Based upon a proposed distance to and size of the sun. If these figures are adjusted the results of his expirement can be replicated exactly on a flat plane. The same experiment with the same results can be used to 'prove' two theories. If you change the data it's not the same experiment, only the same method. And unless the distance of the sun from the earth is around the distance of London to Tenerife the 'proof' falls flat on its ass. This would also mean the sun would need to be significantly smaller than the earth, not the 1.3million times greater volume it is. The experiment was used and is used as empirical proof of a sherical earth. The same results can be mathematically replicated yes if the data is changed. One lot theorise the earth is round and the sun is almost 93 millions away. The experiment's results 'prove' this to be true. Others theorize that the sun is 3000 miles away and much smaller. The same results also 'prove' this theory correct. It's all a case of who you pin your belief in. I'm not saying one way or another. I'm just saying from the physical evidence I can see and feel one makes sense one doesn't. I'm not saying that means it's correct. I'm just not so brash as down right exclude any possibility without having the decency to actually look into it. Brash? Decency? I've just posted half a dozen posts regarding the whole situation that I recall off the top of my head. I have looked into it. So you're telling me the sun is 3000 (it's actually more like 2000 in the flat earth model) away then. So how do you explain facts like mercury and Venus being seen traveling between the sun and the earth? Or are you suggesting these planets or actually tennis balls? " I'm telling you nothing. I'm merely stating the other side of the argument. If the earth were to be in actual fact flat do you think then that Mercury and Venus would still be as they are in the ball earth model? You are so invested in the globe that you cannot imagine anything else. I do not profess to know the answer unlike the many people who 'believe' in the generally accepted theory. It has always interested me and from a child the whole big bang scenario didn't sit well. I'm just more open to look into it. I have visited a Scottish Island where I have family since I was a baby. Whilst there I often go to view another island off in the distance. I can sit on the shore with my binoculars and watch the waves of the Atlantic crash majestically upon it's shoreline. As it now turns out I shouldn't be able to see that if the earth is a sphere of the diameter we are told. The island out in the Atlantic would be obscured by curvature. Yet it isn't. I can go on any clear day any time and view it. Yet science says I can't. A bit like scientists saying, and proving , bumble bees can't fly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The flat earth theory has followers all around the globe... "All that proves is that idiocy isn't just confined to the UK! Can we discuss whether religious academies should be allowed to teach creationism next? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The flat earth theory has followers all around the globe...
All that proves is that idiocy isn't just confined to the UK!
Can we discuss whether religious academies should be allowed to teach creationism next? "To be fair almost everything points to there being a creator. Even science is learning that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The flat earth theory has followers all around the globe...
All that proves is that idiocy isn't just confined to the UK!
Can we discuss whether religious academies should be allowed to teach creationism next? "We can discuss anything. Is that not the point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You could say both sides of the argument are flawed if you were so inclined. If you are hell bent for one side you are bound to feel the other is flawed. " How could you? From your island analogy? An island off the coast that I shouldn't be able to see? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry.
Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help.
Bring your light source closer to the dinner plate and put Australia where it is on the UN map and see the same results. Clears nothing up. You are simply using an experiment to recreate your belief. When the same effect can be recreated just as easily in another model you can't be so sure yours is correct. "Except that you won't see the same results. At all. Not even remotely. The light source in question, the sun, isn't focused like a laser, or even a maglite torch. It's more like a bare bulb, it gives light off in all directions. So while your bulb is nice and close to the British part of the dinner plate simulating noon, it will still be illuminating the Australian part of the dinner plate. The only time any country on the dinner plate would be in darkness is when the sun/lightbulb passes UNDERNEATH it, which would mean every single country on the dinner plate would experience night time at the same time, which is demonstrably nonsense. Even if we disregard the inescapable facts of my first point, which is the sort of things flat earth lunatics like to do, in order for the model to work in the way you describe it the sun/lightbulb would be moving in a direct line from Greenland to Australasia, passing over Europe and looking round to start over. In order to have daylight/nightime in the UK on a regular and predictable basis as we have all observed every single day of our lives, the sun/laser-pen would have to do this consistently every single day, ad infinitum. Which would mean that north-east Russia and Chile/Argentina would never ever get any sunshine. Which is also demonstrably nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You could say both sides of the argument are flawed if you were so inclined. If you are hell bent for one side you are bound to feel the other is flawed. How could you? From your island analogy? An island off the coast that I shouldn't be able to see?" Why even with a powerful telescope can we not look across to other land masses. Why does a ship disappear over a horizon when watched. It's plain as day a globe. Stupid people and their need to feel lied to by the rest of the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other side of the argument is flawed and has too many holes. How far away is the moon in the flat earth model? Jumping distance? " In that particular model it is the same size and distance from earth as the sun so 3000 miles. The moon is quite interesting when you look at it though. In the generally accepted theory the moon is pretty much 400 times smaller than the sun yet happens to be pretty much 400 times closer to earth. As such we can get perfect eclipses. It also happens to revolve on its axis every 27 days coincidentally the same amount of time it takes to orbit earth. Meaning we only ever see one hemisphere from our view point. You could say from physical observation it may as well be a disc
The light from the moon is colder than the shade.
Then there is the theory supported by some NASA data that it is hollow and not the solid chunk of rock we are led to believe it is. I think the terminology they use is it rings like a bell. If this is so why haven't the laws of physics which create all these other solid balls of rock and gas applied to the moon? Why should it be such an anomaly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry.
Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help.
Bring your light source closer to the dinner plate and put Australia where it is on the UN map and see the same results. Clears nothing up. You are simply using an experiment to recreate your belief. When the same effect can be recreated just as easily in another model you can't be so sure yours is correct.
Except that you won't see the same results. At all. Not even remotely. The light source in question, the sun, isn't focused like a laser, or even a maglite torch. It's more like a bare bulb, it gives light off in all directions. So while your bulb is nice and close to the British part of the dinner plate simulating noon, it will still be illuminating the Australian part of the dinner plate. The only time any country on the dinner plate would be in darkness is when the sun/lightbulb passes UNDERNEATH it, which would mean every single country on the dinner plate would experience night time at the same time, which is demonstrably nonsense.
Even if we disregard the inescapable facts of my first point, which is the sort of things flat earth lunatics like to do, in order for the model to work in the way you describe it the sun/lightbulb would be moving in a direct line from Greenland to Australasia, passing over Europe and looking round to start over. In order to have daylight/nightime in the UK on a regular and predictable basis as we have all observed every single day of our lives, the sun/laser-pen would have to do this consistently every single day, ad infinitum. Which would mean that north-east Russia and Chile/Argentina would never ever get any sunshine. Which is also demonstrably nonsense. "The light source in your model | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You could say both sides of the argument are flawed if you were so inclined. If you are hell bent for one side you are bound to feel the other is flawed. How could you? From your island analogy? An island off the coast that I shouldn't be able to see? Why even with a powerful telescope can we not look across to other land masses. Why does a ship disappear over a horizon when watched. It's plain as day a globe. Stupid people and their need to feel lied to by the rest of the world. " On a given day with bad pollution there are cities in the world where you can hardly see across the street. There is of course atmospheric disturbance. The ship disappears 'over' the horizon due to perspective. I would suggest you use that powerful telescope of yours to look at the ship and see what really happens to it when it disappears over the horizon. Genuinely you might shock yourself. If the earth were a true globe the curvature that obscured a ship moving away would also be similarly visible when watching a ship move across our field of vision from left to right or vice versa. By that I mean if we take a ship to disappear from view say 4 or 5 miles out to sea as it heads a way from us. Then if in our field of vision we can see say 20 miles of sea horizon from left to right we should be able to observe that same curve on a ship moving across the horizon rather than over it. Yet we don't. Left to right is horizontal, funny that the word horizon is included in there isn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry.
Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help.
Bring your light source closer to the dinner plate and put Australia where it is on the UN map and see the same results. Clears nothing up. You are simply using an experiment to recreate your belief. When the same effect can be recreated just as easily in another model you can't be so sure yours is correct.
Except that you won't see the same results. At all. Not even remotely. The light source in question, the sun, isn't focused like a laser, or even a maglite torch. It's more like a bare bulb, it gives light off in all directions. So while your bulb is nice and close to the British part of the dinner plate simulating noon, it will still be illuminating the Australian part of the dinner plate. The only time any country on the dinner plate would be in darkness is when the sun/lightbulb passes UNDERNEATH it, which would mean every single country on the dinner plate would experience night time at the same time, which is demonstrably nonsense.
Even if we disregard the inescapable facts of my first point, which is the sort of things flat earth lunatics like to do, in order for the model to work in the way you describe it the sun/lightbulb would be moving in a direct line from Greenland to Australasia, passing over Europe and looking round to start over. In order to have daylight/nightime in the UK on a regular and predictable basis as we have all observed every single day of our lives, the sun/laser-pen would have to do this consistently every single day, ad infinitum. Which would mean that north-east Russia and Chile/Argentina would never ever get any sunshine. Which is also demonstrably nonsense.
The light source in your model"Oh ok, that's interesting. I kind of assumed the sun was still the sun, just closer in the flat earth theory. So how does the sun work in your model? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You could say both sides of the argument are flawed if you were so inclined. If you are hell bent for one side you are bound to feel the other is flawed. How could you? From your island analogy? An island off the coast that I shouldn't be able to see? Why even with a powerful telescope can we not look across to other land masses. Why does a ship disappear over a horizon when watched. It's plain as day a globe. Stupid people and their need to feel lied to by the rest of the world. On a given day with bad pollution there are cities in the world where you can hardly see across the street. There is of course atmospheric disturbance. The ship disappears 'over' the horizon due to perspective. I would suggest you use that powerful telescope of yours to look at the ship and see what really happens to it when it disappears over the horizon. Genuinely you might shock yourself. If the earth were a true globe the curvature that obscured a ship moving away would also be similarly visible when watching a ship move across our field of vision from left to right or vice versa. By that I mean if we take a ship to disappear from view say 4 or 5 miles out to sea as it heads a way from us. Then if in our field of vision we can see say 20 miles of sea horizon from left to right we should be able to observe that same curve on a ship moving across the horizon rather than over it. Yet we don't. Left to right is horizontal, funny that the word horizon is included in there isn't it? "From an oil rig, a ship dissapers over the horizon in the same distance in any direction, as if it was a globe. I know this myself. The horizon is horizontal..and? It would not be vertical Most of your arguments here are a bit weak | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You could say both sides of the argument are flawed if you were so inclined. If you are hell bent for one side you are bound to feel the other is flawed. How could you? From your island analogy? An island off the coast that I shouldn't be able to see? Why even with a powerful telescope can we not look across to other land masses. Why does a ship disappear over a horizon when watched. It's plain as day a globe. Stupid people and their need to feel lied to by the rest of the world. On a given day with bad pollution there are cities in the world where you can hardly see across the street. There is of course atmospheric disturbance. The ship disappears 'over' the horizon due to perspective. I would suggest you use that powerful telescope of yours to look at the ship and see what really happens to it when it disappears over the horizon. Genuinely you might shock yourself. If the earth were a true globe the curvature that obscured a ship moving away would also be similarly visible when watching a ship move across our field of vision from left to right or vice versa. By that I mean if we take a ship to disappear from view say 4 or 5 miles out to sea as it heads a way from us. Then if in our field of vision we can see say 20 miles of sea horizon from left to right we should be able to observe that same curve on a ship moving across the horizon rather than over it. Yet we don't. Left to right is horizontal, funny that the word horizon is included in there isn't it?
From an oil rig, a ship dissapers over the horizon in the same distance in any direction, as if it was a globe. I know this myself.
The horizon is horizontal..and? It would not be vertical
Most of your arguments here are a bit weak "Next time you're off shore get some binoculars and have a look at a ship disappearing over the horizon. Just to see what happens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You could say both sides of the argument are flawed if you were so inclined. If you are hell bent for one side you are bound to feel the other is flawed. How could you? From your island analogy? An island off the coast that I shouldn't be able to see? Why even with a powerful telescope can we not look across to other land masses. Why does a ship disappear over a horizon when watched. It's plain as day a globe. Stupid people and their need to feel lied to by the rest of the world. On a given day with bad pollution there are cities in the world where you can hardly see across the street. There is of course atmospheric disturbance. The ship disappears 'over' the horizon due to perspective. I would suggest you use that powerful telescope of yours to look at the ship and see what really happens to it when it disappears over the horizon. Genuinely you might shock yourself. If the earth were a true globe the curvature that obscured a ship moving away would also be similarly visible when watching a ship move across our field of vision from left to right or vice versa. By that I mean if we take a ship to disappear from view say 4 or 5 miles out to sea as it heads a way from us. Then if in our field of vision we can see say 20 miles of sea horizon from left to right we should be able to observe that same curve on a ship moving across the horizon rather than over it. Yet we don't. Left to right is horizontal, funny that the word horizon is included in there isn't it? "Also your pollution argument is invalid. In a city or well developed areas maybe.. There is no coat of obscuring pollution across the globe obscuring all views. Travel a little, it will help you get over your internet notions..r | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You could say both sides of the argument are flawed if you were so inclined. If you are hell bent for one side you are bound to feel the other is flawed. How could you? From your island analogy? An island off the coast that I shouldn't be able to see? Why even with a powerful telescope can we not look across to other land masses. Why does a ship disappear over a horizon when watched. It's plain as day a globe. Stupid people and their need to feel lied to by the rest of the world. On a given day with bad pollution there are cities in the world where you can hardly see across the street. There is of course atmospheric disturbance. The ship disappears 'over' the horizon due to perspective. I would suggest you use that powerful telescope of yours to look at the ship and see what really happens to it when it disappears over the horizon. Genuinely you might shock yourself. If the earth were a true globe the curvature that obscured a ship moving away would also be similarly visible when watching a ship move across our field of vision from left to right or vice versa. By that I mean if we take a ship to disappear from view say 4 or 5 miles out to sea as it heads a way from us. Then if in our field of vision we can see say 20 miles of sea horizon from left to right we should be able to observe that same curve on a ship moving across the horizon rather than over it. Yet we don't. Left to right is horizontal, funny that the word horizon is included in there isn't it?
From an oil rig, a ship dissapers over the horizon in the same distance in any direction, as if it was a globe. I know this myself.
The horizon is horizontal..and? It would not be vertical
Most of your arguments here are a bit weak
Next time you're off shore get some binoculars and have a look at a ship disappearing over the horizon. Just to see what happens. "I have. Hundreds and hundreds of times | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The flat earth theory has followers all around the globe...
All that proves is that idiocy isn't just confined to the UK!
Can we discuss whether religious academies should be allowed to teach creationism next?
To be fair almost everything points to there being a creator. Even science is learning that."I don't think they are learning that, they are still just theories yet to be proved. Until it is fact it should be kept out of schools until they can be certain how the evolutionary process was started. Teach it as one of the many theories if you like but, shouldn't be taught as the truth. However...it has been proved beyond any doubt that the world is round and only a fool would argue otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other side of the argument is flawed and has too many holes. How far away is the moon in the flat earth model? Jumping distance? In that particular model it is the same size and distance from earth as the sun so 3000 miles. The moon is quite interesting when you look at it though. In the generally accepted theory the moon is pretty much 400 times smaller than the sun yet happens to be pretty much 400 times closer to earth. As such we can get perfect eclipses. It also happens to revolve on its axis every 27 days coincidentally the same amount of time it takes to orbit earth. Meaning we only ever see one hemisphere from our view point. You could say from physical observation it may as well be a disc
The light from the moon is colder than the shade.
Then there is the theory supported by some NASA data that it is hollow and not the solid chunk of rock we are led to believe it is. I think the terminology they use is it rings like a bell. If this is so why haven't the laws of physics which create all these other solid balls of rock and gas applied to the moon? Why should it be such an anomaly? "So if it's the same size and distance from the earth as the sun. Why don't they smash into each other instead of the moon traveling between the earth and sun? Lots of ifs and buts and not a lot of actually answering any rebuttals. The moon could be a disc. It could be hollow. But it doesn't have any bearing on the flat earth model. And if the sun were only 3000 miles away, does that mean that Jupiter and Saturn are closer than they appear? And if so, whys it taken 40 years to travel there? Did NASA just mess up the math and stick voyager1 at 0.62 km/hr instead of 62000? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other side of the argument is flawed and has too many holes. How far away is the moon in the flat earth model? Jumping distance? In that particular model it is the same size and distance from earth as the sun so 3000 miles. The moon is quite interesting when you look at it though. In the generally accepted theory the moon is pretty much 400 times smaller than the sun yet happens to be pretty much 400 times closer to earth. As such we can get perfect eclipses. It also happens to revolve on its axis every 27 days coincidentally the same amount of time it takes to orbit earth. Meaning we only ever see one hemisphere from our view point. You could say from physical observation it may as well be a disc
The light from the moon is colder than the shade.
Then there is the theory supported by some NASA data that it is hollow and not the solid chunk of rock we are led to believe it is. I think the terminology they use is it rings like a bell. If this is so why haven't the laws of physics which create all these other solid balls of rock and gas applied to the moon? Why should it be such an anomaly?
So if it's the same size and distance from the earth as the sun. Why don't they smash into each other instead of the moon traveling between the earth and sun?
Lots of ifs and buts and not a lot of actually answering any rebuttals.
The moon could be a disc. It could be hollow. But it doesn't have any bearing on the flat earth model.
And if the sun were only 3000 miles away, does that mean that Jupiter and Saturn are closer than they appear? And if so, whys it taken 40 years to travel there? Did NASA just mess up the math and stick voyager1 at 0.62 km/hr instead of 62000? "See there's your mistake right there you are believing NASA again. If Jupiter and Saturn arent actually so difficult to reach or aren't what we are told they are how do NASA keep up the big funding fraud. There's a lot invested in these possible lies. Regarding the sun and moon smashing into each other I never said for one moment that they existed in the exact same position in space. If you put two scaletrix cars at opposite ends of an elliptical track and they both move at the same speed they would never collide or come close. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You could say both sides of the argument are flawed if you were so inclined. If you are hell bent for one side you are bound to feel the other is flawed. How could you? From your island analogy? An island off the coast that I shouldn't be able to see? Why even with a powerful telescope can we not look across to other land masses. Why does a ship disappear over a horizon when watched. It's plain as day a globe. Stupid people and their need to feel lied to by the rest of the world. On a given day with bad pollution there are cities in the world where you can hardly see across the street. There is of course atmospheric disturbance. The ship disappears 'over' the horizon due to perspective. I would suggest you use that powerful telescope of yours to look at the ship and see what really happens to it when it disappears over the horizon. Genuinely you might shock yourself. If the earth were a true globe the curvature that obscured a ship moving away would also be similarly visible when watching a ship move across our field of vision from left to right or vice versa. By that I mean if we take a ship to disappear from view say 4 or 5 miles out to sea as it heads a way from us. Then if in our field of vision we can see say 20 miles of sea horizon from left to right we should be able to observe that same curve on a ship moving across the horizon rather than over it. Yet we don't. Left to right is horizontal, funny that the word horizon is included in there isn't it?
From an oil rig, a ship dissapers over the horizon in the same distance in any direction, as if it was a globe. I know this myself.
The horizon is horizontal..and? It would not be vertical
Most of your arguments here are a bit weak
Next time you're off shore get some binoculars and have a look at a ship disappearing over the horizon. Just to see what happens.
I have. Hundreds and hundreds of times"So what happens? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other side of the argument is flawed and has too many holes. How far away is the moon in the flat earth model? Jumping distance? In that particular model it is the same size and distance from earth as the sun so 3000 miles. The moon is quite interesting when you look at it though. In the generally accepted theory the moon is pretty much 400 times smaller than the sun yet happens to be pretty much 400 times closer to earth. As such we can get perfect eclipses. It also happens to revolve on its axis every 27 days coincidentally the same amount of time it takes to orbit earth. Meaning we only ever see one hemisphere from our view point. You could say from physical observation it may as well be a disc
The light from the moon is colder than the shade.
Then there is the theory supported by some NASA data that it is hollow and not the solid chunk of rock we are led to believe it is. I think the terminology they use is it rings like a bell. If this is so why haven't the laws of physics which create all these other solid balls of rock and gas applied to the moon? Why should it be such an anomaly?
So if it's the same size and distance from the earth as the sun. Why don't they smash into each other instead of the moon traveling between the earth and sun?
Lots of ifs and buts and not a lot of actually answering any rebuttals.
The moon could be a disc. It could be hollow. But it doesn't have any bearing on the flat earth model.
And if the sun were only 3000 miles away, does that mean that Jupiter and Saturn are closer than they appear? And if so, whys it taken 40 years to travel there? Did NASA just mess up the math and stick voyager1 at 0.62 km/hr instead of 62000?
See there's your mistake right there you are believing NASA again. If Jupiter and Saturn arent actually so difficult to reach or aren't what we are told they are how do NASA keep up the big funding fraud. There's a lot invested in these possible lies.
Regarding the sun and moon smashing into each other I never said for one moment that they existed in the exact same position in space. If you put two scaletrix cars at opposite ends of an elliptical track and they both move at the same speed they would never collide or come close. "So how are solar eclipses explained? More conspiracy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The flat earth theory has followers all around the globe...
All that proves is that idiocy isn't just confined to the UK!
Can we discuss whether religious academies should be allowed to teach creationism next?
To be fair almost everything points to there being a creator. Even science is learning that.
I don't think they are learning that, they are still just theories yet to be proved. Until it is fact it should be kept out of schools until they can be certain how the evolutionary process was started. Teach it as one of the many theories if you like but, shouldn't be taught as the truth.
However...it has been proved beyond any doubt that the world is round and only a fool would argue otherwise."Until recently it was fact that civilisation first started among the Sumerians in Mesopotamia around 4-5 thousand years BC. This was taught as a given. Then Gobekli Tepe appeared and has turned all of those known 'facts' on their heads. To describe something as fact and to teach it as such without ever allowing questioning or alternative thinking is foolish. Where we stand now with our scientific 'facts' is contradictory to those of our fore fathers. Their 'facts' we now know to be wrong. Try explaining the double split experiment to Archimedes and see how far you get with it. Understanding is an evolution. One in which the only thing we can be sure of is there are no certainties, only questions and proposed answers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planes must be flying in circles above a disc.Boats must be going in circles.GPS must be part of the conspiracy. "Aye this man has it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Planes must be flying in circles above a disc.Boats must be going in circles.GPS must be part of the conspiracy. "If magnetic north is the centre of your disc your compass readings would show exactly the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Engineers throughout the world have been using Newton's Principia to build stuff for hundreds of years and upto now it seems to be just fine and dandy at having a predictable outcome on shit which is the main of science. The boy did good "With a little help from (Nature) A apple tree.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone tell us why there would be a cover up as to the shape of the earth? Why is it critical to those covering it up that we think it's a globe. Also who? Who is covering this up? And why would it be flat given all the other planets are not? Or are we saying all planets are flat now? I've heard some thick theories before but this one is pretty high up the list There are scientists right now saying that we are a simulation. The mathematical likelihood is that we are a simulation created by a simulation. There is the multiverse a now widely accepted group of theories about multiple universes. Yet we can't live in the Trueman Show? That didn't answer my questions. Who is behind this flat Earth cover up and why? Or is the answer conveniently elusive? The globe earth only became regarded as the dominant theory fairly recently in human history. If you run the economies and governments of the world and you want to control your people what better way than to convince them they are but a speck of carbon existing on a ball doing laps of a bigger ball, doing laps of bigger balls, doing laps of bigger balls. Convince people they are nothing and controlling them is much easier. Got any names? Specific leaders?" David Icke surely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Got any names? Specific leaders? David Icke surely "Yeah how we all laughed at him and his crazy talk of the predatory Westminster paedophile ring including the likes of Ted Heath... Oh wait... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone tell us why there would be a cover up as to the shape of the earth? Why is it critical to those covering it up that we think it's a globe. Also who? Who is covering this up? And why would it be flat given all the other planets are not? Or are we saying all planets are flat now? I've heard some thick theories before but this one is pretty high up the list There are scientists right now saying that we are a simulation. The mathematical likelihood is that we are a simulation created by a simulation. There is the multiverse a now widely accepted group of theories about multiple universes. Yet we can't live in the Trueman Show? That didn't answer my questions. Who is behind this flat Earth cover up and why? Or is the answer conveniently elusive? The globe earth only became regarded as the dominant theory fairly recently in human history. If you run the economies and governments of the world and you want to control your people what better way than to convince them they are but a speck of carbon existing on a ball doing laps of a bigger ball, doing laps of bigger balls, doing laps of bigger balls. Convince people they are nothing and controlling them is much easier. Got any names? Specific leaders? David Icke surely "The cover up would be for this reason I believe: If the earth were flat and the sun and planets and everything revolve around us that would mean that we are after all at the centre of the centre of everything. Placed here by a Creator or a God .. Capitalism(evil, Satan etc) wouldn't be doing very well if everyone still believed and worshipped a god and obeyed his rules. Its better to use science to prove the nonexistence of god and turn humankind to self belief and materialism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The flat earth theory has followers all around the globe...
All that proves is that idiocy isn't just confined to the UK!
Can we discuss whether religious academies should be allowed to teach creationism next?
To be fair almost everything points to there being a creator. Even science is learning that.
I don't think they are learning that, they are still just theories yet to be proved. Until it is fact it should be kept out of schools until they can be certain how the evolutionary process was started. Teach it as one of the many theories if you like but, shouldn't be taught as the truth.
However...it has been proved beyond any doubt that the world is round and only a fool would argue otherwise.
Until recently it was fact that civilisation first started among the Sumerians in Mesopotamia around 4-5 thousand years BC. This was taught as a given.
Then Gobekli Tepe appeared and has turned all of those known 'facts' on their heads.
To describe something as fact and to teach it as such without ever allowing questioning or alternative thinking is foolish.
Where we stand now with our scientific 'facts' is contradictory to those of our fore fathers. Their 'facts' we now know to be wrong. Try explaining the double split experiment to Archimedes and see how far you get with it.
Understanding is an evolution. One in which the only thing we can be sure of is there are no certainties, only questions and proposed answers. "Therefore facts as they stand at this moment in time should be taught with an understanding that new evidence may be discovered in the future and that these facts may be subject to change and evolution. Theories should be taught as theories and not truths with the understanding that one day some one may be able to provide evidence but as yet none exists. It is however good to keep an open mind. There is alternative thinking! And, there is "alternative thinking"!! You obviously have a very intellectual mind. There are so many problems in the world that would benefit from your intellect, the solving of which would alleviate so many of humanities problems. Food shortage Flood Global warming Housing Poverty War When Arguing that the world is flat, you are wasting the intellect you've been given and you do yourself and the world a huge injustice! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The flat earth theory has followers all around the globe...
All that proves is that idiocy isn't just confined to the UK!
Can we discuss whether religious academies should be allowed to teach creationism next?
To be fair almost everything points to there being a creator. Even science is learning that.
I don't think they are learning that, they are still just theories yet to be proved. Until it is fact it should be kept out of schools until they can be certain how the evolutionary process was started. Teach it as one of the many theories if you like but, shouldn't be taught as the truth.
However...it has been proved beyond any doubt that the world is round and only a fool would argue otherwise.
Until recently it was fact that civilisation first started among the Sumerians in Mesopotamia around 4-5 thousand years BC. This was taught as a given.
Then Gobekli Tepe appeared and has turned all of those known 'facts' on their heads.
To describe something as fact and to teach it as such without ever allowing questioning or alternative thinking is foolish.
Where we stand now with our scientific 'facts' is contradictory to those of our fore fathers. Their 'facts' we now know to be wrong. Try explaining the double split experiment to Archimedes and see how far you get with it.
Understanding is an evolution. One in which the only thing we can be sure of is there are no certainties, only questions and proposed answers.
Therefore facts as they stand at this moment in time should be taught with an understanding that new evidence may be discovered in the future and that these facts may be subject to change and evolution.
Theories should be taught as theories and not truths with the understanding that one day some one may be able to provide evidence but as yet none exists. It is however good to keep an open mind.
There is alternative thinking! And, there is "alternative thinking"!!
You obviously have a very intellectual mind. There are so many problems in the world that would benefit from your intellect, the solving of which would alleviate so many of humanities problems.
Food shortage
Flood
Global warming
Housing
Poverty
War
When Arguing that the world is flat, you are wasting the intellect you've been given and you do yourself and the world a huge injustice!
"Firstly thank you for pretty much the first kind word aimed in my direction during this thoroughly enjoyable debate. Secondly I agree with you and don't believe theories should ever be taught as fact; whether religious or scientific in nature. For what it is worth I am not arguing that the world is flat. Merely that it is not completely absurd to assume it may be. I would rather people open themselves to the fact that maybe our reality is not as we are programmed to believe it is. Many of humanities problems that you mention can be directly linked to the way we govern ourselves. Who is in charge and how they choose to conduct their business. To have food shortage in a world of surplus. To have poverty when it was reported in 2015 that the top 1% owned more wealth than the rest of the 99% together and that 8 individuals own more than the 3.6 billion people who make up the bottom 50% is a fact we should all be ashamed of. To have mainly young men from poor backgrounds kill other similar young men purely on a political and economic ideology is abhorrent. Those are indeed facts. Facts that could be indicitive that there may be people in control who would not want the population of the world knowing the truth. That top 1% may have it all but if the bottom 99% realised and stood up they wouldn't for long. Best to make them think they are but a speck on a rock flying through space for eternity. Have them fight each other for resources and stature and the staus quo can remain. I don't feel looking into flat earth theory is a waste of time at all. It opens your eyes, if you are prepared to have them opened, to quite literally a whole new world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry.
Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help.
Bring your light source closer to the dinner plate and put Australia where it is on the UN map and see the same results. Clears nothing up. You are simply using an experiment to recreate your belief. When the same effect can be recreated just as easily in another model you can't be so sure yours is correct.
Except that you won't see the same results. At all. Not even remotely. The light source in question, the sun, isn't focused like a laser, or even a maglite torch. It's more like a bare bulb, it gives light off in all directions. So while your bulb is nice and close to the British part of the dinner plate simulating noon, it will still be illuminating the Australian part of the dinner plate. The only time any country on the dinner plate would be in darkness is when the sun/lightbulb passes UNDERNEATH it, which would mean every single country on the dinner plate would experience night time at the same time, which is demonstrably nonsense.
Even if we disregard the inescapable facts of my first point, which is the sort of things flat earth lunatics like to do, in order for the model to work in the way you describe it the sun/lightbulb would be moving in a direct line from Greenland to Australasia, passing over Europe and looking round to start over. In order to have daylight/nightime in the UK on a regular and predictable basis as we have all observed every single day of our lives, the sun/laser-pen would have to do this consistently every single day, ad infinitum. Which would mean that north-east Russia and Chile/Argentina would never ever get any sunshine. Which is also demonstrably nonsense.
The light source in your model
Oh ok, that's interesting. I kind of assumed the sun was still the sun, just closer in the flat earth theory. So how does the sun work in your model? "Avoiding this one then, yeah? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess you can believe what you want to believe, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Go out and test it, take a compass and follow it due west and see where you end up. Do flat earthers believe in compasses? I guess you could use the stars to navigate if they are fixed to the top of the dome that covers the world they should make an excellent navigational reference point. " Follow the stars! If we are hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour for billions of years why do we see the exact same stars and constellations at the same time each year? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry.
Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help.
Bring your light source closer to the dinner plate and put Australia where it is on the UN map and see the same results. Clears nothing up. You are simply using an experiment to recreate your belief. When the same effect can be recreated just as easily in another model you can't be so sure yours is correct.
Except that you won't see the same results. At all. Not even remotely. The light source in question, the sun, isn't focused like a laser, or even a maglite torch. It's more like a bare bulb, it gives light off in all directions. So while your bulb is nice and close to the British part of the dinner plate simulating noon, it will still be illuminating the Australian part of the dinner plate. The only time any country on the dinner plate would be in darkness is when the sun/lightbulb passes UNDERNEATH it, which would mean every single country on the dinner plate would experience night time at the same time, which is demonstrably nonsense.
Even if we disregard the inescapable facts of my first point, which is the sort of things flat earth lunatics like to do, in order for the model to work in the way you describe it the sun/lightbulb would be moving in a direct line from Greenland to Australasia, passing over Europe and looking round to start over. In order to have daylight/nightime in the UK on a regular and predictable basis as we have all observed every single day of our lives, the sun/laser-pen would have to do this consistently every single day, ad infinitum. Which would mean that north-east Russia and Chile/Argentina would never ever get any sunshine. Which is also demonstrably nonsense.
The light source in your model
Oh ok, that's interesting. I kind of assumed the sun was still the sun, just closer in the flat earth theory. So how does the sun work in your model?
Avoiding this one then, yeah? "Not at all. Just spend some of my time here trying to get laid so missed this one
The sun is still the sun but is relatively much closer to the dinner plate earth. It circles around a central magnetic north on a daily basis. The circuits starting in January making gradually smaller circles until June/July when it begins to increase the diameter of its circuit again. So at it's widest point the southern 'hemisphere' as we would know it is closer to and has more direct sunlight their summer. As it begins to narrow we move to the summer in the northern 'hemisphere' as we know it.
It revolves in a spiral. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry.
Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help.
Bring your light source closer to the dinner plate and put Australia where it is on the UN map and see the same results. Clears nothing up. You are simply using an experiment to recreate your belief. When the same effect can be recreated just as easily in another model you can't be so sure yours is correct.
Except that you won't see the same results. At all. Not even remotely. The light source in question, the sun, isn't focused like a laser, or even a maglite torch. It's more like a bare bulb, it gives light off in all directions. So while your bulb is nice and close to the British part of the dinner plate simulating noon, it will still be illuminating the Australian part of the dinner plate. The only time any country on the dinner plate would be in darkness is when the sun/lightbulb passes UNDERNEATH it, which would mean every single country on the dinner plate would experience night time at the same time, which is demonstrably nonsense.
Even if we disregard the inescapable facts of my first point, which is the sort of things flat earth lunatics like to do, in order for the model to work in the way you describe it the sun/lightbulb would be moving in a direct line from Greenland to Australasia, passing over Europe and looking round to start over. In order to have daylight/nightime in the UK on a regular and predictable basis as we have all observed every single day of our lives, the sun/laser-pen would have to do this consistently every single day, ad infinitum. Which would mean that north-east Russia and Chile/Argentina would never ever get any sunshine. Which is also demonstrably nonsense.
The light source in your model
Oh ok, that's interesting. I kind of assumed the sun was still the sun, just closer in the flat earth theory. So how does the sun work in your model?
Avoiding this one then, yeah?
Not at all. Just spend some of my time here trying to get laid so missed this one
The sun is still the sun but is relatively much closer to the dinner plate earth. It circles around a central magnetic north on a daily basis. The circuits starting in January making gradually smaller circles until June/July when it begins to increase the diameter of its circuit again. So at it's widest point the southern 'hemisphere' as we would know it is closer to and has more direct sunlight their summer. As it begins to narrow we move to the summer in the northern 'hemisphere' as we know it.
It revolves in a spiral. "But it would still at least partially illuminate the entire earth 24 hours a day all year round, if it were flat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess you can believe what you want to believe, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Go out and test it, take a compass and follow it due west and see where you end up. Do flat earthers believe in compasses? I guess you could use the stars to navigate if they are fixed to the top of the dome that covers the world they should make an excellent navigational reference point. Follow the stars! If we are hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour for billions of years why do we see the exact same stars and constellations at the same time each year? "If you walk around in a big circle and that circle takes you ten minutes to complete in ten minutes time if you have a look around the. You will see the same view you did ten minutes before | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How did they get past that pesky Van Allen Radiation Belt back then? Seems odd as we can't do it now." They just flew through them. The thinnest part to make it quicker) Took about 2 hours. And received approximately the same radiation dose as two medical Xrays. You just can't stay there permanently. Plus the Apollo capsule provided shielding ( the Van Allen radiation is particle radiation and its associated bremsstrahlung radiation, so the aluminium and polyester skin of Apollo was quite a good shield too.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess you can believe what you want to believe, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Go out and test it, take a compass and follow it due west and see where you end up. Do flat earthers believe in compasses? I guess you could use the stars to navigate if they are fixed to the top of the dome that covers the world they should make an excellent navigational reference point. " Flat earthers believe that magnetic North is central on a flat plane. Every direction away from North therefore must be South. To move West would be to travel in a clockwise direction around the magnetic North and to go East would be to travel in a counter clockwise direction around the magnetic central North. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry.
Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help.
Bring your light source closer to the dinner plate and put Australia where it is on the UN map and see the same results. Clears nothing up. You are simply using an experiment to recreate your belief. When the same effect can be recreated just as easily in another model you can't be so sure yours is correct.
Except that you won't see the same results. At all. Not even remotely. The light source in question, the sun, isn't focused like a laser, or even a maglite torch. It's more like a bare bulb, it gives light off in all directions. So while your bulb is nice and close to the British part of the dinner plate simulating noon, it will still be illuminating the Australian part of the dinner plate. The only time any country on the dinner plate would be in darkness is when the sun/lightbulb passes UNDERNEATH it, which would mean every single country on the dinner plate would experience night time at the same time, which is demonstrably nonsense.
Even if we disregard the inescapable facts of my first point, which is the sort of things flat earth lunatics like to do, in order for the model to work in the way you describe it the sun/lightbulb would be moving in a direct line from Greenland to Australasia, passing over Europe and looking round to start over. In order to have daylight/nightime in the UK on a regular and predictable basis as we have all observed every single day of our lives, the sun/laser-pen would have to do this consistently every single day, ad infinitum. Which would mean that north-east Russia and Chile/Argentina would never ever get any sunshine. Which is also demonstrably nonsense.
The light source in your model
Oh ok, that's interesting. I kind of assumed the sun was still the sun, just closer in the flat earth theory. So how does the sun work in your model?
Avoiding this one then, yeah?
Not at all. Just spend some of my time here trying to get laid so missed this one
The sun is still the sun but is relatively much closer to the dinner plate earth. It circles around a central magnetic north on a daily basis. The circuits starting in January making gradually smaller circles until June/July when it begins to increase the diameter of its circuit again. So at it's widest point the southern 'hemisphere' as we would know it is closer to and has more direct sunlight their summer. As it begins to narrow we move to the summer in the northern 'hemisphere' as we know it.
It revolves in a spiral.
But it would still at least partially illuminate the entire earth 24 hours a day all year round, if it were flat. "Depends on the dimensions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry.
Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help.
Bring your light source closer to the dinner plate and put Australia where it is on the UN map and see the same results. Clears nothing up. You are simply using an experiment to recreate your belief. When the same effect can be recreated just as easily in another model you can't be so sure yours is correct.
Except that you won't see the same results. At all. Not even remotely. The light source in question, the sun, isn't focused like a laser, or even a maglite torch. It's more like a bare bulb, it gives light off in all directions. So while your bulb is nice and close to the British part of the dinner plate simulating noon, it will still be illuminating the Australian part of the dinner plate. The only time any country on the dinner plate would be in darkness is when the sun/lightbulb passes UNDERNEATH it, which would mean every single country on the dinner plate would experience night time at the same time, which is demonstrably nonsense.
Even if we disregard the inescapable facts of my first point, which is the sort of things flat earth lunatics like to do, in order for the model to work in the way you describe it the sun/lightbulb would be moving in a direct line from Greenland to Australasia, passing over Europe and looking round to start over. In order to have daylight/nightime in the UK on a regular and predictable basis as we have all observed every single day of our lives, the sun/laser-pen would have to do this consistently every single day, ad infinitum. Which would mean that north-east Russia and Chile/Argentina would never ever get any sunshine. Which is also demonstrably nonsense.
The light source in your model
Oh ok, that's interesting. I kind of assumed the sun was still the sun, just closer in the flat earth theory. So how does the sun work in your model?
Avoiding this one then, yeah?
Not at all. Just spend some of my time here trying to get laid so missed this one
The sun is still the sun but is relatively much closer to the dinner plate earth. It circles around a central magnetic north on a daily basis. The circuits starting in January making gradually smaller circles until June/July when it begins to increase the diameter of its circuit again. So at it's widest point the southern 'hemisphere' as we would know it is closer to and has more direct sunlight their summer. As it begins to narrow we move to the summer in the northern 'hemisphere' as we know it.
It revolves in a spiral. "So the sun revolves round a central magnetic point like it said on a piece of string. It then spirals out towards the circumstance of the disc, what makes it spiral back in. If it’s basic magnetism we should be able to recreate this with magnets | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess you can believe what you want to believe, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Go out and test it, take a compass and follow it due west and see where you end up. Do flat earthers believe in compasses? I guess you could use the stars to navigate if they are fixed to the top of the dome that covers the world they should make an excellent navigational reference point. Follow the stars! If we are hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour for billions of years why do we see the exact same stars and constellations at the same time each year?
If you walk around in a big circle and that circle takes you ten minutes to complete in ten minutes time if you have a look around the. You will see the same view you did ten minutes before"Yes but if in that ten minutes everything else is hurtling away from each other (expansion) the view should at least be a little altered when you get back around. Think of your circle that your walking on. When you start there's a group of people standing together. As you go for your walk those people start to move away from each other. When you get back those people will be in different places at different distances from what you saw when you left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides..it just feels like a big ball somehow, instinct screams..it's a ball! Indoctrination screams it is a ball. Every child ever born questions it. It makes no sense that its a ball. We are taught it is. Nothing instinctive about it. I've seen it myself dude..any place on The planet..there's the lovely bally horizon, no edge, no ice just rolls on round
Me thinks too many interweb videos have you indoctrinated..easily done with some
I'd urge you to revisit any of those places you've visited and look again at that lovely bally horizon. I'm not asking you to accept my word. But go and look. From the top of your favourite hill or from the wee window of the next plane you are in. The horizon comes up and meets your eye.
Moreso you can often see things from the shore which you shouldn't be able to as per spherical trigonometry.
Shine a lamp onto a dinner plate. Then shine the same lamp on a football. If you're still not sure what I'm getting at, ring someone in Australia and ask them what time it is, and cross reference that to your football/dinner plate observations. If this very, very, very, very, very, very simple experiment doesn't clear things up then I'm afraid you're beyond help.
Bring your light source closer to the dinner plate and put Australia where it is on the UN map and see the same results. Clears nothing up. You are simply using an experiment to recreate your belief. When the same effect can be recreated just as easily in another model you can't be so sure yours is correct.
Except that you won't see the same results. At all. Not even remotely. The light source in question, the sun, isn't focused like a laser, or even a maglite torch. It's more like a bare bulb, it gives light off in all directions. So while your bulb is nice and close to the British part of the dinner plate simulating noon, it will still be illuminating the Australian part of the dinner plate. The only time any country on the dinner plate would be in darkness is when the sun/lightbulb passes UNDERNEATH it, which would mean every single country on the dinner plate would experience night time at the same time, which is demonstrably nonsense.
Even if we disregard the inescapable facts of my first point, which is the sort of things flat earth lunatics like to do, in order for the model to work in the way you describe it the sun/lightbulb would be moving in a direct line from Greenland to Australasia, passing over Europe and looking round to start over. In order to have daylight/nightime in the UK on a regular and predictable basis as we have all observed every single day of our lives, the sun/laser-pen would have to do this consistently every single day, ad infinitum. Which would mean that north-east Russia and Chile/Argentina would never ever get any sunshine. Which is also demonstrably nonsense.
The light source in your model
Oh ok, that's interesting. I kind of assumed the sun was still the sun, just closer in the flat earth theory. So how does the sun work in your model?
Avoiding this one then, yeah?
Not at all. Just spend some of my time here trying to get laid so missed this one
The sun is still the sun but is relatively much closer to the dinner plate earth. It circles around a central magnetic north on a daily basis. The circuits starting in January making gradually smaller circles until June/July when it begins to increase the diameter of its circuit again. So at it's widest point the southern 'hemisphere' as we would know it is closer to and has more direct sunlight their summer. As it begins to narrow we move to the summer in the northern 'hemisphere' as we know it.
It revolves in a spiral.
So the sun revolves round a central magnetic point like it said on a piece of string. It then spirals out towards the circumstance of the disc, what makes it spiral back in.
If it’s basic magnetism we should be able to recreate this with magnets "I didn't say it was magnetism which made the flat earth model move in such a way. But your compass would still certainly work as it does now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A football pitch is flat. A floodlight provides light. If that floodlight were suspended above a football pitch on a circular rig and moved around the field you would find that areas of the pitch become conversely light then dark in relation to where they are as opposed to where the flood light is at any given time. Doesn't mean they play football on a ball. " https://youtu.be/Rk3YndyvdKc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont believe the earth is flat. Though i think they make some good arguments. No weirder than people who believe in ghosts. Or evangelical Christians. "Oh I believe in Evangelical Christians too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing harmless about any of it... U think the earth is flat- your menatally unstable and should be regurlarly checked. U beleive in an imaginary man in the sky- ur bat shit crazy and should be sectioned . How about beleive in facts proven by scientists! For example ....when u die your dead...end of. If i do something bad to you , 'god' is not going to get me back. Its fucking laughable really" Might be the case. Might not be. None of us can say for sure. And if you think you can you might need to he the one checked up. Science still hasn't figured out where everything comes from. To be fair big bang theory is laughable. There was nothing then there was everyghing??? Come on like | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing harmless about any of it... U think the earth is flat- your menatally unstable and should be regurlarly checked. U beleive in an imaginary man in the sky- ur bat shit crazy and should be sectioned . How about beleive in facts proven by scientists! For example ....when u die your dead...end of. If i do something bad to you , 'god' is not going to get me back. Its fucking laughable really" On what basis are you suggesting I'm mentally unstable? I've never once referred this discussion towards any though of God or a God. Why should I believe in facts proven by scientists? They've almost always proved themselves to be wrong, in the end, before. Ask yourself other than what the scientists say what makes you believe you live on a revolving ball? What have You experienced which justifies this belief? Maybe one so angry with others and who believes that alternative thoughts are not harmless should be the one getting checked regularly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
