General
02 Feb 16
06 Mar 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIt's so obvious, so achingly clear... but no one here can support it with verifiable objective evidence.
To be fair sir, it is hard to get motivated to provide evidence for the blindingly obvious.
Ask me to prove global warming and i'm as alert as a kitten. Ask me to prove cats like to eat fish and i'm going back to bed.
Kinda weird, huh.
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by wolfgang59I am more than happy to discuss any of the other issues you feel establish the necessity of a globe earth.
I think ORION is objective.
Anyone can see it.
It is verifiable by millions.
Weird? nah...
However, instead of constantly moving the goal posts, let's remain on one topic at a time.
You made an initial claim that the formula for the rate of curvature of the earth was in error.
Please support that claim or admit you were wrong.
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by josephwWell, if you're speaking to the CGI in your icon, it is one of thousands of images NASA has produced in an effort to perpetuate the globe earth concept.
What are my eyes seeing?
Examine any of their images and you will see the same theme presenting itself: contradiction upon contradiction.
Is the globe a perfectly round sphere?
No, it's an oblate spheroid.
Every picture NASA produces, however, the earth is perfectly round.
How is it possible to observe such wide divergence in the size of the continents from one image to another?
Why do the artists consider it necessary to photoshop cloud formations?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat's what I've always thought. The difference in diameter between the polar axis and the equator is .042 km.
Well, if you're speaking to the CGI in your icon, it is one of thousands of images NASA has produced in an effort to perpetuate the globe earth concept.
Examine any of their images and you will see the same theme presenting itself: contradiction upon contradiction.
Is the globe a perfectly round sphere?
No, it's an oblate spheroid.
Every picture NA ...[text shortened]... m one image to another?
Why do the artists consider it necessary to photoshop cloud formations?
But I have no idea why NASA would produce images to perpetuate a lie. Is that true?
By the way. I read through the thread everyone seems to think makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, especially FMF. I couldn't find any evidence for their claim. 😉
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou missed this. GPS is the answer to your question.
GPS.
Now, how does a flat earther account for the countless people who have been to the South Pole and the scientific research station situated close by? If the South Pole doesn't exist, where do these people go on a flat earth?
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy is NASA lying? How many people need to be involved, and have been involved for over 50 years, to perpetuate this lie?
Well, if you're speaking to the CGI in your icon, it is one of thousands of images NASA has produced in an effort to perpetuate the globe earth concept.
Examine any of their images and you will see the same theme presenting itself: contradiction upon contradiction.
Is the globe a perfectly round sphere?
No, it's an oblate spheroid.
Every picture NA ...[text shortened]... m one image to another?
Why do the artists consider it necessary to photoshop cloud formations?
Also, over 1000 people from 40 countries around the world have travelled over 100km and beyond into the atmosphere. How many of them are flat earth proponents? Or are they all in on the conspiracy?
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell, I read through that other thread and this one and nowhere did I see anyone say the earth is flat. FKBH is only saying the earth isn't a globe, but an oblate spheroid instead, which is what the earth is after all.
Why is NASA lying? How many people need to be involved, and have been involved for over 50 years, to perpetuate this lie?
Also, over 1000 people from 40 countries around the world have travelled over 100km and beyond into the atmosphere. How many of them are flat earth proponents? Or are they all in on the conspiracy?
Why does everyone else keep talking about a flat earth? It's ludicrous!
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo.
I am more than happy to discuss any of the other issues you feel establish the necessity of a globe earth.
However, instead of constantly moving the goal posts, let's remain on one topic at a time.
You made an initial claim that the formula for the rate of curvature of the earth was in error.
[b]Please support that claim or admit you were wrong.[/b]
You claimed that either the formula for curvature was wrong
or
the Earth was flat.
I said that the formula must be wrong (since the world is not flat)
You have since failed to provide me with the formula in question .
When you do so, I shall prove it wrong (in the context you are using it)
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by josephwKeep up Joseph.
Well, I read through that other thread and this one and nowhere did I see anyone say the earth is flat. FKBH is only saying the earth isn't a globe, but an oblate spheroid instead, which is what the earth is after all.
Why does everyone else keep talking about a flat earth? It's ludicrous!
'For those who have done a modicum of research on the topic, the clarity is found in the perspective of a plate-like flat earth.'
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFill a room randomly with 100 people, and announce your belief that the Earth is flat.
Well, if you're speaking to the CGI in your icon, it is one of thousands of images NASA has produced in an effort to perpetuate the globe earth concept.
Examine any of their images and you will see the same theme presenting itself: contradiction upon contradiction.
Is the globe a perfectly round sphere?
No, it's an oblate spheroid.
Every picture NA ...[text shortened]... m one image to another?
Why do the artists consider it necessary to photoshop cloud formations?
The unilateral response of bemusement and ridicule 'really' should speak volumes. The evidence against a flat Earth is staggering. The conspiracy necessary for it to be true, simply laughable. (Would even have to include passengers from Concorde who have seen the curvature).
You need to bring something else to the table. I suggest a globe.
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow do you explain this: the first accurate measurement of the size of the round Earth:
Thought of, perhaps, but knot known per se.
Mathematics insist the globe (at its current stated dimensions) cannot in any way, shape or form, be round-ish in nature.
The curvature required of a round-ish globe dictates a vanishing horizon using a specific formula.
For reality to not conform to this formula says one of three things:
1. Either ...[text shortened]... wrong; or
2. The dimensions attributed to the earth are wrong; or
3. The earth is not round.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
With a couple of sticks and some geometry, he calculated the size of Earth rather accurately by having the sticks point straight up and seeing the shadow at high noon on one stick and a noticeable shadow at the same time on the other stick about 1000 Km away from the first.
Then a bit of geometry and he had how far down into Earth the center was and from there how far around the Earth was. Pretty impressive for a few thousand years ago and it was done with a couple of sticks, which we can do today. You can't get that with a flat Earth. At high noon it would still be vertical in both places because the Sun is so far away the angle difference between two sticks a thousand Km apart would be very small so any difference has to be due to the roundness of the Earth.
No way you can rationalize that one away.
08 Mar 16
Originally posted by sonhouseEratosthenes assumed (correctly) that the sun was sufficiently far away for light at different parts of the Earth to be parallel.
How do you explain this: the first accurate measurement of the size of the round Earth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
With a couple of sticks and some geometry, he calculated the size of Earth rather accurately by having the sticks point straight up and seeing the shadow at high noon on one stick and a noticeable shadow at the same time o ...[text shortened]... erence has to be due to the roundness of the Earth.
No way you can rationalize that one away.
Flat-Earthers assume the Earth is flat then using same data can deduce the sun is 20 miles away (or some such).