Jump to content

The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mate will you give it a fucking rest, you asked me to explain it and I did ,if you can't understand it or can but wont accept it ,your problem not mine.

You seem to be a fully payed up member of the broken record brigade

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Musical interlude....

 

”The earth was flat if you went to far you would fall off

 

Now the earth is round if the shape change again everybody would start laugh

 

The average man can’t prove of most of the things that he chooses to speak of

 

And still won’t research and find out the root of the truth that you seek of”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, peter said:

Mate will you give it a fucking rest, you asked me to explain it and I did ,if you can't understand it or can but wont accept it ,your problem not mine.

You seem to be a fully payed up member of the broken record brigade

 

you cant explain it because its contrary to sphere calculations

 

i have given you plenty of space to amend, explain or alter your shadow goes faster nonsense but you refused

 

you cant hide from the globe theories own calculations

 

the shadow cant go faster than the moons linear speed

the distance from the sun to moon to earth  makes an insignificant difference

they move at the same speed as per globe science

 

its all there in the video i posted

 

the earth doesnt stop spinning during an eclipse

the shadow cant go faster than the moon

theres only so much time

####

 

check mate

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, zArk said:

i have given you plenty of space to amend, explain or alter your shadow goes faster nonsense but you refused

It's not that I refused ,I just can't be bothered any more,

If your right ,how about letting me know your flat earth theory,  one drawing showing how the seasons work ,night and day and eclipses work all together not separate drawings

So here is your big chance, let her rip you have the floor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zArk said:

check mate

 

Ridiculous.

 

I'm going to start with the most obvious of obvious things. Namely the observable action of the Sun. It sets it rises, it never changes size. That in itself is simply impossible on a flat Earth model. Basic trigonometry using the flat Earth model for the Sun distance makes a complete mockery of the model itself. Shall we look at it?

The actual verifiable angular diameter of the Sun viewed from anywhere on the planet, at any time of day and every day is 0.5 degrees. It varies very slightly by a small fraction, but that is what the human eye sees. It can be verified simply by viewing the Sun through clouds or a filter. The flat Earth model uses a quite ludicrous solar distance of 3,000 miles. It must do this as an inept attempt to explain day and night cycles(it fails miserably, but that is another story!).
Using trigonometry, try not to laugh here, 3,000 miles and 0.5 degrees makes the Sun diameter 26.2 miles. Now at any given point where the Sun goes directly overhead(near the equator), that would be the nearest distance to the Sun at zenith, but not as it lowers or rises. So let's examine the Sun at say 45 degrees to the observer. 3,000 miles to zenith and a 45 degree angle to actual puts the Sun now at a distance of 4,240 miles.

So, we have the Sun diameter at 26.2 miles and the distance is now 4,240 miles, it gives an angular diameter for the Sun at 0.35 degrees. Whoah there! A 45 degree elevation of the Sun returned a 30% reduction in its size compared to directly overhead. But folks, it gets way worse than that. Let's put the Sun down near the horizon at 15 degrees elevation(75 degrees off zenith). An angle of 75 degrees and 3000 miles to zenith puts the Sun at a distance of 11,600 miles.

Now, this is where the crap hits the air conditioning system. The Sun diameter of 26.2 miles and a distance of 11,600 miles gives the angular diameter at 0.129! That is very slightly more than a quarter of what we actually see at 0.5 degrees.

We're done already and that was just the first point! If you really want to kick the FE model whilst it's dead, how about the simple revelation that when the Sun is at 75 degrees from vertical it is 11,600 miles away! Standing on the equator in Singapore, the Sun still visible and not set yet, it sits 1000 miles short of zenith above the opposite side of the world! Even small children know it's the opposite on the other side of the world, ie. night time. If we move on to things like starfields rotating in opposite directions in Australia compared to the United Kingdom, there is no way for a flat Earth to explain this. Stars that are visible only in the Northern and Southern hemispheres exclusively. We also see the Lunar phases inverted in the Southern hemisphere. This has an "explanation" that is also quite ridiculous. It goes something like this: place a picture of the Moon on the ceiling, look at it from opposite sides of the room. Voila. Sadly, that is just nonsense. Here's a good way to show why: Imagine you are on a track that goes around the Earth at the same speed as the Moon on the same path it follows(on the FE model). Always you view the Moon just rising. At what point does it suddenly flip over! Another thing about the phases shows the sheer impossibility of the FE model. The Sun and Moon doing these great circles and one catching up the other. That's how they "explain" the phase changes. However, this creates a nasty and unavoidable problem. The Moon is visible at any one time across several thousands of miles of night sky. With a fixed position of Sun and Moon at any given time and a simultaneous visibility as stated, the crescent area of the Moon illuminated by the Sun, visible at opposite ends of this wide section, would be significantly different to each other. Clearly they are not!

Speaking of the Moon, over many decades, Radio hams have bounced radio waves off of the surface and timed the returns. Just from an approximation of the time taken, it puts the Moon at a quarter of a million miles away. Yet all humans see the Moon pass in front of the Sun during eclipses. The "explanation" is that the radio hams are all lying or mistaken. This broad-based claim runs quite frequently amongst the FE fraternity, who quite frighteningly claim that all space travel is also faked, including the highly visible International Space Station! Put those dark glasses on, don't look through your telescope, here it comes over the horizon. You have to laugh at the madness really. The mantra is repeated to encompass literally million of human beings as complicit in the space travel "hoax". In addition to the ISS, smaller satellites are visible, trackable and exactly where their orbital paths say they should be. Those pesky radio hams pick up all sorts of signals from the satellites as they lock on and track them across the skies. Tens of millions of dishes all across Europe and North Africa, aim at TV satellites in geostationary orbit. These provide highly directional signals that simply stop being picked up outside the span of the transmission. There have been some 8,000 space launches recorded, including probes throughout the solar system. The number of people to be fooled or involved is astronomical, considering data is being received in massive volumes on a daily basis. This includes weather satellites for every country and data coming down in gigabytes per hour!

Now one of the key issues the flat earth crowd complain about is not seeing the curve. If you use simple trigonometry and take a bog standard visual span of 90 degrees, at sea level head height, the human eye will simply be unable to detect the 4 hundredths of a degree of variance. At 1000 metres it's still a paltry 1 degree and by the time you get up to cruising altitude for a jet it has only mustered over 3 degrees. Just about visible. Going higher, at 100 kilometres it is still only 10 degrees variance. The Earth is very big, that is why we don't see much curvature. Here is a simple plot of the curvature :

 
Angles.jpg
 


As you can see, the actual visible angles at very high altitudes are quite small. Cameras with wider angle than the effective visibility of the human eye will exaggerate this curvature. In addition, due to the way the light path changes as it crosses over the centre of the lens, it can invert the visible curve. During the transition between the visible curve and the inversion, it flattens. The flatties tend to have kittens when they see this occurring and make lots of noise, but they always fail to mention that cameras on weather balloons, filming this very thing, always pick up the obvious partials of a spherical layer of a full Earth. On a flat Earth, that is simply impossible.

Second of the key issues is the complaint that we see things we shouldn't based on the curvature figures. Pretty much the standard reply to this whole thing is refraction of light as it passes through the atmosphere. There is also the effects of heat inversions that cause mirages and other variances. The most telling thing about this issue is that quite clearly, the bottom of these distant objects is missing. Numerous videos now reside on Youtube showing boats disappearing hull first, but rather than concentrate on that let's view Chicago from a variety of distances:
 

Chicago_2.jpg



The question is not why can we see more than we should, but where have the bottoms of the buildings gone! Over the curve of the horizon. Simple.
So far we have discussed just simple things that should stop this flat Earth nonsense from even being raised, but never let facts and evidence get in the way of a good conspiracy. A conspiracy of millions over thousands of years, when poor old Richard Nixon couldn't keep the Watergate scandal quiet and worse, Bill Clinton couldn't silence the oral habits of female interns!
Lunar eclipses. Another slam dunk of the FE theory. Quite simply put, the Earth moves between Sun and Moon and causes an eclipse. This is where the flatties get ridiculously amusing about what we are seeing, because clearly the flat Earth model has a major brain fart on this matter. Both Sun and Moon are visible in the sky! They claim some invisible object moves in front of the Sun's path to the Moon and blocks out most of the light. This is an object nobody on Earth can detect, even when it is doing the blocking! These lunar eclipses are predicted to the millisecond by astronomical data that goes back and forward as many years as is needed. Yet the flatties claim this is all made up because that isn't what we are seeing.

Night and day, a fairly easy to understand occurrence for us all, is another nail in this dead duck coffin. The Sun is claimed to be 3,000 miles away on a path that mathematics prove is gibberish, illuminating in a way that is not consistent with basic physics or reality. With very little effort, it can be proven that the Sun illuminates half the globe at any given time. With refraction, this incursion creates zones of twilight. From the FE model, we have this circular flat earth and a Sun doing some bizarre unexplained rotation around the equator. A quick diagram showing this:
 

TZY8XHTNv7ejo2_5njCYdUK3oNV7pqDo41YcWj-TSBPueo63P3sfv01P_RpkkVsbL9Jz_zj-ze3FCr2nYeOCMTuORXQdxj36EJbxp0I=s0-d
 


It doesn't take much thought to see the problem here. The circular area of illumination does not create a 50% illumination of the Earth. In fact the only way to get the correct illumination is from a light source that creates a magic straight line across a diameter of the flat Earth circle. Blatantly impossible. All this whilst the spotlight disappears/reappears over the edge of the horizon and doesn't change size whatsoever. Don't forget that the Moon also does this exact same thing with no size change. All in all, observational evidence that slaps the forehead of every flatnut!

Take a look at the FE model Earth from the picture above. The equator is provably 25,000 miles around. However the distance from the southern tip of South America all around to Tasmania is a circle that is double the distance of the equatorial circle. South America to Tasmania becomes 25,000 miles. Don't laugh. You can actually look at that idiotic map and show that only the pole to pole distances will match reality. The ones around in a circle most certainly do not.
Sadly I don't expect it to break through the hard shell of resistance routinely exhibited by flat Earth conspiracists, though hopefully it will stop those approaching the edge and about to fall off with the penguins! We haven't even touched on gravity, yet another thing denied by these barmy people, because there is no way it can work on a flat Earth. We also haven't discussed the mysterious forces that make the Sun and Moon magically revolve around the flat Earth in their thus proven impossible paths.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, truegroup said:

Ridiculous.

Indeed.

 

Fallacy... a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid
fallacious - Google Search
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
Fallacies of Presumption
Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia
False premise - Wikipedia
False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.

flat-earth-memes-79-17.jpg

 

If you think you can come on here and cut and paste a wall of text proving nothing solves anything, you are either a paid by freemasons or simply broken.

 

Ban me!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, bflat said:

Indeed.

 

Fallacy... a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid
fallacious - Google Search
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
Fallacies of Presumption
Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia
False premise - Wikipedia
False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.

flat-earth-memes-79-17.jpg

 

If you think you can come on here and cut and paste a wall of text proving nothing solves anything, you are either a paid by freemasons or simply broken.

 

Ban me!

 

 

I would like to see a 3d interpretation of you theory that takes in night and day, the seasons and eclipses in one go as they all have to work together not separately ,like I said to Zark still waiting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, peter said:

It's not that I refused ,I just can't be bothered any more,

because the shadow length and the shadow speed are all wrong for globe calculations

this is why i am repeating and repeating because i get what you say when writing "shadow is faster than the moons angular speed ) yet i think you havent followed through the argument to the conclusion the official explanation of solar eclipse within the globe model starts with earth spin and moon angular speed but then ignores them at the conclusion when stating its shadow speed across the land

18,000km, 147 degree shadow in 5 hrs

 

Quote

 

If your right ,how about letting me know your flat earth theory,  one drawing showing how the seasons work ,night and day and eclipses work all together not separate drawings

So here is your big chance, let her rip you have the floor

 

 

 

i have said before the flat earth theory has not captured me because i have learnt from past experience that the polarised debate is always strings attached theres always sacrifice to be associated with any group

in fact i think the land we exist upon is not arbitary from our collective thinking in my opinion the land, the sea, the plane[t] is shaped by the collective consciousness of people

 

and i suspect that the weather is representative of the consciousness of people living in that area. weather predictions and the 'human action caused this' argument are all part of a Cult spell to control and focus peoples thinking and attempt to change weather patterns for the cults own means.

 

so the flat earth theory is good, up to a point, but it aint mine or something i would say like "i am a flat earther". thats not my bag, i am bit more 'out there'

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, truegroup said:

That in itself is simply impossible on a flat Earth model. Basic trigonometry using the flat Earth model for the Sun distance makes a complete mockery of the model itself. Shall we look at it?

well it does 'change size' due to the density of the air as it gets apparently higher or lower in the sky

 

9 hours ago, truegroup said:

The actual verifiable angular diameter of the Sun viewed from anywhere on the planet, at any time of day and every day is 0.5 degrees. I

 

how is it verifiable and how is it 0.5 degrees? just asking as i dont know where that figure came from

 

trouble for any observation is that the air causes visual differences. seen this with stuff they call 'inferior mirage' and 'superior mirage' and 'diffraction' with the seen horizon and curvature stuff.

 

btw hi truegroup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, peter said:

I would like to see a 3d interpretation of you theory that takes in night and day, the seasons and eclipses in one go as they all have to work together not separately ,like I said to Zark still waiting

 

just because the heliocentric model is collapsing doesnt mean you NEED an instant replacement

i see women like you all the time, jumping from relationship to relationship. because they are scared to death being alone

 

if you think heliocentrism holds anything of value,great good for you, but i always advise people to not return to an abusive relationship just because you get taken out for a meal on saturday and get flowers bought for you. a fancy car doesnt make for a happy life

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zArk said:

 

just because the heliocentric model is collapsing doesnt mean you NEED an instant replacement

i see women like you all the time, jumping from relationship to relationship. because they are scared to death being alone

 

if you think heliocentrism holds anything of value,great good for you, but i always advise people to not return to an abusive relationship just because you get taken out for a meal on saturday and get flowers bought for you. a fancy car doesnt make for a happy life

HA HA HA If you could explain it ,you would have it up there in CAPITAL LETTERS as I know the way you think,the fact that you don't have it for all the world to see means you can't, so here we have someone who will argue black and blue that the globalists as you call them are wrong but you can't even put together a theory that encompasses all the observed artifacts with regards to the earth, sun and moon ,let a lone the stars.

Lets be honest , this is your argument , So what do you think of the current theory regarding a spheroid earth , answer ,it's all bullshit  we have been lied to by the Freemasons, but it  explains what we actually observe ,  that doesn't matter it's all bullshit,  so how dose your theory work then , fucked if I know but its correct .

Now you are talking about buying me a car and taking me to dinner , thanks but no thanks.

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bflat said:

If you think you can come on here and cut and paste a wall of text proving nothing solves anything, you are either a paid by freemasons or simply broken

 

So rather than tackle each issue and point, you attack the poster for 'a wall of text'? 

Inside that wall of text is a whole load of valid points which you are choosing to avoid and deflect. 

It would have been better to completely ignore the post than respond the way you have.. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Basket Case said:


Thank you  :O)

That explains nothing whatsoever..
But thanks anyway.

Look, it is your sarcasm that explains nothing.

 

You are a mod here and cannot follow a simple conversation and that is sad.

 

Alexa correctly explained:

"The trouble with this argument Basket Case, is, shouldn't the facts, first have to be true.?"

 

To which you replied by asking her to explain in a "manner that's comprehendable." First off, "comprehendable" is not a word any more than your imagined spinning ball moving at multiple times the speed of sound in a nearly perfect vacuum.

 

But moreover, she posted a meme (easily comprehended) for you with multiple examples of your NON-facts. Not one of those are proven in any scientific way. For you and your ilk, blind faith is all you need. And that's fine for some people; I'm not judging, but for me, I need more.

 

ASK YOURSELF WHY YOU CANNOT PROVE ANY STATEMENT ON THAT LONG LIST ALEXA POSTED and check back... thanks.

 

And the word you were trying for was "comprehensible!" Good luck with that.

Edited by bflat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bflat said:

Look, it is your sarcasm that explains nothing.

 

You are a mod here and cannot follow a simple conversation and that is sad.

 

Alexa correctly explained:

"The trouble with this argument Basket Case, is, shouldn't the facts, first have to be true.?"

 

To which you replied by asking her to explain in a "manner that's comprehendable." First off, "comprehendable" is not a word any more than your imagined spinning ball moving at multiple times the speed of sound in a nearly perfect vacuum.

 

But moreover, she posted a meme (easily comprehended) for you with multiple examples of you NON-facts. Not one of those are proven in any scientific way. For you and your ilk, blind faith is all you need. And that's fine for some people; I'm not judging, but for me. I need more.

 

ASK YOURSELF WHY YOU CANNOT PROVE ANY STATEMENT ON THAT LONG LIST ALEXA POSTED and check back... thanks.

 

And the word you were trying for was "comprehensible!" Good luck with that.


Yep, l had trouble with comprehensible and comprehendable.....but you knew what l meant, right ?
So now you're the DIF grammar police ?
.
l can follow a conversation and your derisive and rude remarks are not welcome or helpful.
l thanked for the response but stated clearly that Alexa explained nothing that l could COMPREHEND.
That is ; it still made no sense to me.
Posting a picture with random sentences about Space / Planet, flat or global does not actually  'explain' any facts at all.
While your views on flat earth are more than welcome, your attitude is not.
(BTW - I am yet to see a proper full response from you to the 'wall of text' which you have still so far ignored and deflected.)
BC  :O)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bflat said:

But moreover, she posted a meme (easily comprehended) for you with multiple examples of you NON-facts. Not one of those are proven in any scientific way. For you and your ilk, blind faith is all you need. And that's fine for some people; I'm not judging, but for me. I need more.


And;
Specifically this part... l see this as a complete inversion of the nature of this thread and 'flat earthers' arguments / position.

Each to their own, as l just said above, but politeness costs nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Basket Case said:


Yep, l had trouble with comprehensible and comprehendable.....but you knew what l meant, right ?
So now you're the DIF grammar police ?
.
l can follow a conversation and your derisive and rude remarks are not welcome or helpful.
l thanked for the response but stated clearly that Alexa explained nothing that l could COMPREHEND.
That is ; it still made no sense to me.
Posting a picture with random sentences about Space / Planet, flat or global does not actually  'explain' any facts at all.
While your views on flat earth are more than welcome, your attitude is not.
(BTW - I am yet to see a proper full response from you to the 'wall of text' which you have still so far ignored and deflected.)
BC  :O)

Is this an honest reply? A "picture with random sentences?" Every statement on that list is what is claimed, but never proven by modern astronomy.

 

Alexa asked for facts that are true. You have failed in providing any as did your little wall of text guy.

 

One logical fallacy after another as I have explained multiple times now.

 

Where the hell is your proof. It's time. Choose any one of the statements posted by alexa and let's see what you are calling truth. Just one, lol.

 

Just ridiculous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

Specifically this part... l see this as a complete inversion of the nature of this thread and 'flat earthers' arguments / position.

Then freaking prove it with an articulate argument not based solely in logical fallacies.

 

I mean, is this not what we are here for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bflat said:

Then freaking prove it with an articulate argument not based solely in logical fallacies.

 

I mean, is this not what we are here for?


l believe truegroup gave an articulate and detailed argument which you dismiss completely without discussing any of the points.
When you begin to address any of truegroups 'facts' then l might join you.
Until then l'll just watch and wonder..
Thanks
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Basket Case said:


l believe truegroup gave an articulate and detailed argument which you dismiss completely without discussing any of the points.
When you begin to address any of truegroups 'facts' then l might join you.
Until then l'll just watch and wonder..
Thanks
 

You trolled alexa and now you are running from your own remarks. That was the most comprehensible example of several of the problems with your belief system.

 

Now, all you want is for me to repond to a nasa troll who posts the same nonsense all over the internet. Read the thread. All of it has been handled prior.

 

This is about you not backing up your trolling of alexa, not the one post nasa guy.

 

Let us look together at the first statement:

"You are spinning at 1000 mph."

 

Now, prove that statement to be true without using multiple logical fallacies and we can discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Grumpy Owl changed the title to The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)
  • Grumpy Owl locked, unlocked and locked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl unlocked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...