Jump to content

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


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

@alexa Really? You get given slam dunk videos and have nothing to say about them? Then post the flat earth map that turns international flying routes into.....well....comedy time! How about you research the routes and times, use some trigonometry and work out why that map cannot work.

 

On your map the circumference running through Sydney / Santiago is very economically 32,000 (nearer 35k). Divide by pi = 10,184 straight line distance, which incidentally takes you over America and not 100% across the water as the flight is.

 

Here's your starter for 10:

Sydney to Santiago - flying time 12 hours 35 minutes  - distance 7,046 miles. Boeing 787 cruising speed 561 mph. Works just fine.

Sydney to Santiago - flying time 12 hours 35 minutes  - distance 10,184 miles. Boeing 787 cruising speed 561 mph. Not so much.

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Carlos :classic_biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alexa said:

 

 What was your question again ??

 

You get given slam dunk videos and have nothing to say about them? Then post the flat earth map that turns international flying routes into.....well....comedy time! How about you research the routes and times, use some trigonometry and work out why that map cannot work.

 

On your map the circumference running through Sydney / Santiago is very economically 32,000 (nearer 35k). Divide by pi = 10,184 straight line distance, which incidentally takes you over America and not 100% across the water as the flight is.

 

Here's your starter for 10:

Sydney to Santiago - flying time 12 hours 35 minutes  - distance 7,046 miles. Boeing 787 cruising speed 561 mph. Works just fine.

Sydney to Santiago - flying time 12 hours 35 minutes  - distance 10,184 miles. Boeing 787 cruising speed 561 mph. Not so much.

 

Can you explain that?

 

It's ok, we both know you aren't going to answer any of it. It's for the people who are possibly about to fall into the flat earth abyss. Things to think about that show it to be total nonsense.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alexa said:

 

I'm sorry Carlos, math's never was my strongest point..............➕➖➗:classic_unsure:

 

What is? 

 

Your map doesn't work. Even at maximum speed possible the 787 is not going to cover that distance in that time?

 

So many things wrong with flat earth, how can this not bother you. There are hundreds of long haul flight discrepancies like this for that impossible map.

 

How about the videos. You afraid to respond to them? How do starfields rotate in opposite directions like that? Globe explains all. Flat earth explains not a single thing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

What is? 

 

Your map doesn't work. Even at maximum speed possible the 787 is not going to cover that distance in that time?

 

So many things wrong with flat earth, how can this not bother you. There are hundreds of long haul flight discrepancies like this for that impossible map.

 

How about the videos. You afraid to respond to them? How do starfields rotate in opposite directions like that? Globe explains all. Flat earth explains not a single thing.

 

 

I think this guy says it all from the FE side, they don't have all the data. End of discussion, close the thread, heliocentric won. 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I think this guy says it all from the FE side, they don't have all the data. End of discussion, close the thread, heliocentric won.

 

Well us FE'ers have had a good run for our money.

Once a Flat Earther always a Flat Earther.  How you Ballers can put up with all their lies they have indoctrinated you with I will never know,  I'm just glad I can see beyond them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2020 at 3:58 PM, zArk said:

its not punch and judy ffs

 

if i was a women no-way would i partner carlos, i like to think i could do better.

 

 

Apologies. On my mobile your icon picture looks just like a native American statue with big nips. Upon closer inspection i can now see it's just a tin robot wearing a fucking belt. You've left at least 1 baller flaccid tonight, Zark. Thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 days ago this thread was as dead as Bebo. Then Comedy Time turned up and was like "Have some science, you flat earth nutters". And Flat Earth Co were all like "Nah mate. Here's some memes of Admiral Birdseye, you baller bitch". And normality was resumed.

 

For now.

Edited by Albion
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2020 at 11:46 PM, amy G said:

https://youtu.be/1yF5uT80qHQ

 

The above video shows and explains the horizon problem perfectly.

 

 

Nice video, one would have to ask ,who the fuck is Dr John , in my day he was a muso, but as you say this video dose explain the horizon perfectly ,he really didn't think about the background  did he, at 3.19 look at the 3 wind turbines  ,the idiot who made the video just shot himself in the foot, and for a math wiz and an aerospace employee ,your obviously not very observant   . Please don't ask me to explain what it means as anyone with half a brain will be able to work it out ,but if you would like me to explain it to you I would be more than happy to do so.

At 3.59 its even better, big heading look at the buoy, just don't look behind it

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, serpentine said:

 

Or dump it in a "specially created Antiscience forum for the admins to use" along with all the other recycling and disruptive antiscience memes.

well not really, i was with carlos opening up the issues with the Solar Eclipse data vs heliocentric maths and calculations

there are still a couple of unresolved points

 

regarding the laser over the water --- other than 'its fake' and 'laser skipping across' there has been no serious rebuttal

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, zArk said:

well not really, i was with carlos opening up the issues with the Solar Eclipse data vs heliocentric maths and calculations

there are still a couple of unresolved points

 

regarding the laser over the water --- other than 'its fake' and 'laser skipping across' there has been no serious rebuttal

 

Ok, shall we continue? I got my second wind.

 

What are the unresolved issues left?

 

The laser in theory can be skipping over the sea but this is 100% light refraction. I want you to go to your video at 4.12 and look at how this dead straight laser can easily be bent through simple temperature gradients and density variations in the sky. If you like I can give you some great mathematics pages that show the looming effects that this is.

 

https://youtu.be/PI8kdz79yyw

 

I would add that we have no independent corroboration the heights are as they say - and I really don't trust these people at all. They cannot possibly believe the Earth is flat, it's a big cash cow for them.

 

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zArk said:

well not really, i was with carlos opening up the issues with the Solar Eclipse data vs heliocentric maths and calculations

there are still a couple of unresolved points

 

regarding the laser over the water --- other than 'its fake' and 'laser skipping across' there has been no serious rebuttal

 

 

 

These points can just as easily be resolved in a new subforum preferably well down the listings under humour maybe - it's the basic premise of the 0/P that's the problem .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, serpentine said:

These points can just as easily be resolved in a new subforum preferably well down the listings under humour maybe - it's the basic premise of the 0/P that's the problem .

 

Have to disagree. Make it really visible and destroy it with science and observation. Stops others falling into the abyss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

The laser in theory can be skipping over the sea but this is 100% light refraction

theres refraction when you lot want it  lol 

 

10 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

What are the unresolved issues left?

the shadow touching the spinning earth at the end of eclipse in the atlantic but i cant blame Heliocentrism for trying to cover this up because it uses the Saros cycle and series to accurately predict and map the eclipse onto the globe model

 

220px-Saros_136_animation.gif.5075fc0de5f13adc69a2096509cd6e13.gif

 

because helio models cannot predict the solar eclipses , its tooo much for their calcs, they use the Saros Cycle and they use the predicted path of the shadow. So the start and finish of the solar eclipse is argued against by the spherists because they know the trouble it causes their beliefs

 

they wrap the data around the globe model as much as they can as try to hide the issue yet the solar eclipse figures are there, the helio globe moon data is there and they do not match up together.

 

AND

 

the movement of the moon on its orbit places the shadow outside the earth 

 

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

theres refraction when you lot want it  lol 

 

https://youtu.be/CnrjdD08dWg

 

There's complete denial when the flat earthers want it. I made a small edit to my post above btw. Did you see the video at 4.12?

 

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

the shadow touching the spinning earth at the end of eclipse in the atlantic but i cant blame Heliocentrism for trying to cover this up because it uses the Saros cycle and series to accurately predict and map the eclipse onto the globe model

 

220px-Saros_136_animation.gif.5075fc0de5f13adc69a2096509cd6e13.gif

 

 

 

This is simply a problem in your interpretation of what those areas mean. They are visibility curves for the partial eclipse on the left and right edges. My diagram that demonstrates this was dismissed by you. The two points I made were not addressed by you. The shadow is very wide as we can see by the green line. That width extends beyond where the shadow ends (into space).

 

The Moon penumbra "shadow" which is effectively a varying diminishing of the extremely bright Sun is very big:

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/35635/during-an-eclipse-how-big-is-the-shadow-of-the-moon-on-the-earth#:~:text=Typically%2C the umbra is 100–160 km wide%2C while,km. Source%3A Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

Typically, the umbra is 100–160 km wide, while the penumbral diameter is in excess of 6400 km. Source: Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html#:~:text=During a partial solar eclipse%2C the Moon's umbra,a place close to one of the poles.

"During a partial solar eclipse, the Moon's umbra or antumbra, the shadow's center portion, is cast into space just above the polar regions, missing

http://xjubier.free.fr/site_movies/TSE_2017_Simulation_1024x768.mp4poles."

 

 

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

because helio models cannot predict the solar eclipses , its tooo much for their calcs, they use the Saros Cycle and they use the predicted path of the shadow. So the start and finish of the solar eclipse is argued against by the spherists because they know the trouble it causes their beliefs

 

Of course they can predict the eclipses. It's just a simple computer program with the motion of each astronomical body. It will give exact figures to the second. Saros is used for old timers such as NASA's main eclipse man "All eclipse calculations are by Fred Espenak, and he assumes full responsibility for their accuracy."

 

You can also do it manually with simple mathematics.

https://www.webassign.net/seedfoundations/ebook/CH03-4.html

 

Besides SAROS started to go wrong slightly. Luckily the global earth explains it all.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/rotation.html

 

Saros uses a human version of computing. It recognises that after certain long periods the exact same line up re-occurs, allowing predictions for the next eclipse. Simple.

 

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

they wrap the data around the globe model as much as they can as try to hide the issue yet the solar eclipse figures are there, the helio globe moon data is there and they do not match up together.

 

I just cannot understand what you are saying. It all matches exactly. I suggest you download Stellarium and program the times and locations into it to show how the partial eclipse is visible after the shadow is cast beyond the Earth.

 

Once again I suggest you watch the animation of the whole thing. BEFORE the eclipse shadow arrives, the penumbra is visible on Earth even though the full eclipse shadow is cast into space. And after.

 

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

the movement of the moon on its orbit places the shadow outside the earth 

 

This is your understanding of what we are seeing. That is the problem.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, serpentine said:

They are not nor ever have been here for the opportunity for a discussion.

 

Personally I have found this sadly the case on virtually every discussion I have had. There always comes a point when solid counter evidence gets ignored. But the point is, others can see this and maybe not make the same errors. It's very odd that a lot of newbies to a conspiracy will make no effort to check the efficacy of what they read.

 

It's why my main interest - space travel - frequently involves what I labelled "whackamole" arguments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, alexa said:

Didn't bflat do well :classic_biggrin:

 

336232737_aveiw.PNG.c20ef02f2870a260b056b16e31140cd8.PNG

Compared to what ? flies love crap but that doesn't mean I have to eat it

How's Gflat's video going, you know the one that fixes the horizon problem, if I could just stop laughing I may be able to to accommodate you lot with a valid argument  instead of the sarcasm that I think is so richly deserved

Edited by peter
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...