The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread

[Grumpy Owl]

Sorry but this topic is just a collosal waste of everyone's time.

 

In the grand scheme of things, it really does not matter if the earth is a flat disc or it is a globe.

 

Clearly we are at an impasse here - we have one side that resolutely 'believes' the earth is flat, while the other side disagrees with this belief.

 

You are never going to be able to convince either side that they are 'wrong'. And the resulting arguing, bickering and fighting is just a massive distraction from the 'real issues' that we should be coming together and fighting back against.

 

Namely the imposition of a global totalitarian fascist society.

 

Instead of trying to convince people that the world is a 'flat disc', why not try and convince people that their 'governments' do not care about them, democracy is a sham, and their liberties and freedom are being taken away from them all in the name of 'fighting a virus' that in all likelihood doesn't even exist? Why not try and educate people about how their 'elite masters' are satanic paedophiles?

 

It occurred to me today how much of my own precious time has been wasted either getting involved with or moderating this particular thread.

 

To be honest, if I had my way, I'd choose to lock this thread permanently, and 'ban' any further discussions on this topic. But I won't, because I'm just a moderator and I don't run or own this forum, plus I do believe strongly in freedom of speech, and I'm not prepared to just close down any discussion because I don't agree with what is being said.

 

So I'm done here, if you all want to keep this thread going, please do so, but stick to the Forum Rules          , and if anyone steps out of line, please use the Report Post feature to notify a moderator.

[kj35]

I pop in to look so I know who appear to be the ones to avoid on other threads. The one's more likely to disrupt and divert a thread. 

[serpentine]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

 

...The loss of such extended worlds, of an understanding transcendant to Earth, are probably the real cause for the collapse of civilizations ... it is not because a hero or villain did this and that.  

It is due to changes in the internal state of people in that region that causes it to collapse, a narrowing of their experience of life.

Humans are very ignorant of such things.

 

 

Recent studies have highlighted a very distinct connection between long term solar cycles and the collapse of past civilizations due the pattern shifts in climate which means population increases followed by migrations driven by the need for food. The Sun also moderates human health and psychology in short and possibly long term patterns.

 

 

[serpentine]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Owl said:

Sorry but this topic is just a collosal waste of everyone's time.....

 

 

 

 

The o/p asked easily on why we were so interested in it.

 

I didn't answer then but my own interest was reconnecting to the forum in a particular way to sense something that caught my attention just prior to DiF -1 going down. It happened again just before  the second hack went in coupled with a flurry of posts similar to people trying to get the last word in.

 

I don't want members being banned on my say so and never pestered the mods even when there was a report button. I did report the b/f name calling me but only to highlight the devious reply given when I mentioned it to them in this current forum.

 

My suggestion as it was eventually implimented in DiF -2 is still to marginalize  FE and other antiscience/antiforum  topics from the get/go.

Edited September 23, 2020 by serpentine

[peter]

8 hours ago, amy G said:

I posted it as a time calculator which it was patented for in several countries.

 

Your confusion is like ct's in that you didn't understand the discussion you were commenting on. Go back to the discussion with @Grumpy Owl to understand this.

 The only one who is somewhat confused appears to you, as you don't even know what mars is anymore (your words not mine), and I can't be bothered trying to explain anything further ,no matter how many times you flog a dead horse ,it still wont become conscious and get up, will it Bflat

Edited September 23, 2020 by peter

[peter]

14 hours ago, amy G said:

s it fair to say that if I could prove we see these objects at obviously different sizes, then the entire heliocentric model would need to be rethought?

Yes good point but since you can't prove it ,what dose that tell you

I know what you will say, all it means is you can't prove it, it doesn't mean they are not different sizes (if you really look)

Well I think the moon is made of cheese ,what type I'm not sure but just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it's not correct

I didn't realize how similar our arguments were

Edited September 24, 2020 by peter

[peter]

13 hours ago, zArk said:

they moon and sun appear to be the same diameter and you can assume the size is the same

Yes but not for the reasons you postulate

your getting close, that was half the question ,in case you have forgotten the other part was, dose the sun change size as it moves across the sky or more to the point as the earth rotates and the distance to your point of observation increases. Come on you can do it , it either dose or it doesn't

Edited September 24, 2020 by peter

[Beaujangles]

On 5/25/2020 at 9:14 PM, Avoiceinthecrowd said:

 

No. There are lands beyond the icewall. Roughly 30 usa size continents all around around on an infinite ice plane.

 

 

For some reason I am standing somewhere near Winterfell in Game of Thrones at the moment. Do you think there may be a similarity to the books. Im not here to laugh - I find all things interesting. Especially things that I myself cant prove one way or the other.. Gets me thinking about Nightwalkers and beyond the wall... and of course the blind eyes that see.  

Edited September 24, 2020 by Beaujangles

[amy G]

12 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

 

@bflat

Ive pointed this out to you a few times before, but you just regurgitate it again..now in a new name pretending to be a girl & new to flat Earth how many other alters do you have on this forum I wonder?

 

“The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles.” —US Patent No. 497,917 by Alexander Gleason

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US497917

 

 

Where are you getting your numbers?

 

And why bother with obviously dishonest memes?

 

12 hours ago, Bombadil said:

Just a question on flat Earth map above. Why is the so called Antartica surround us a standard circle mostly except in places to the left/ top left, where it seems to be more map like definition? Is this something implying that that the other areas have never been surveyed?

i have sailed in Antartica waters to the south of South Africa. Seen Antartica etc. I saw at the time the Captain sailing based up maps And charts of the area. Coastline clearly marked but not in flat earth model above.

But, you never circumnavigated it because that is impossible.

 

12 hours ago, Bombadil said:

It’s all preposterous to think that in the 21st century, whatever you believe that the entire coastline would not be mapped! Something done on globe model theory by the way.

The coastline paradox proves all maps are wrong, especially on a globe. I promise you have no idea what the distance of any coastline is.

 

 

 

[amy G]

1 hour ago, peter said:

Yes good point but since you can't prove it ,what dose that tell you

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-the-moon-and-the-s/

[Comedy Time]

1 hour ago, amy G said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-the-moon-and-the-s/

 

Real comedy time. Do you realise the difference between the sun changing size and the Sun "looking a bit BIGGER" at the horizon from a bloody optical illusion??

From your shoot yourself in the foot with an uzi webpage...

 

"if you photograph the moon at various heights above the horizon, you will see that the images of the moon are all the same size. My students frequently send me photos of a 'giant' harvest moon in which the moon looks like a small spot in the sky. (The same thing happens in photos of seemingly spectacular sunsets--the illusion works for the sun as well.) Another way to break the hold of the illusion is to cup your hand into a fist and look through it at the 'large' horizon moon. It will immediately shrink in size."

 

 

[Comedy Time]

1 hour ago, amy G said:

Where are you getting your numbers?

 

Mathematics duhhh.

 

1 hour ago, amy G said:

But, you never circumnavigated it because that is impossible.

 

No it isn't. Who fooled you into thinking that?

 

[Comedy Time]

13 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

@alexa @amy G @zArk @dollazNdiamond

 

Scenario: The bottom edge of the Sun is almost hitting the horizon. This means that it is "x" miles above the "flat earth" directly above that point it is disappearing into. From the observer the angle is 0.01 of a degree a fraction above horizon. Not one of the flat earthers can now give a figure of how far the Sun is because of course that lays them wide open to simple trigonometry to destroy their claim completely.

 

SO. Let's get really silly shall we? Mount Everest is 5.5 miles high  - we shall substitute x for 5.5 miles. Nobody is THAT dumb to claim the Sun is below the damn mountain - but shall we work it out anyway?

 

http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm

A= 0.01 degrees

a=5.5 miles

 

The Frickin' Sun is 31 500 miles away!

 

Any one of you going to respond? Why not? Afraid to lose face? Personally I'd give you a virtual round of applause if you mange to exit the flat earth abyss.

[amy G]

54 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Real comedy time. Do you realise the difference between the sun changing size and the Sun "looking a bit BIGGER" at the horizon from a bloody optical illusion??

From your shoot yourself in the foot with an uzi webpage...

 

"if you photograph the moon at various heights above the horizon, you will see that the images of the moon are all the same size. My students frequently send me photos of a 'giant' harvest moon in which the moon looks like a small spot in the sky. (The same thing happens in photos of seemingly spectacular sunsets--the illusion works for the sun as well.) Another way to break the hold of the illusion is to cup your hand into a fist and look through it at the 'large' horizon moon. It will immediately shrink in size."

 

 

Yes, your 20 pages of redundancy was for not. Cup your hand... see the truth. There is much more to this as well.

 

From what you quoted:

...cup your hand into a fist and look through it at the 'large' horizon moon. It will immediately shrink in size."

 

 

[amy G]

50 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Mathematics duhhh.

This I can do. Please show your work and I'll be more than happy to bandy these numbers with you. But if you can't tell it's a hoax meme from simply looking at it, I'm not sure we will get too far.

[zArk]

On 9/21/2020 at 8:00 PM, Comedy Time said:

How does the Sun set with no size change? It's fairly straight forward.

 

apparently the sun doesnt change size

refraction of the light depending upon air density will affect the size

closer to the horizon = more dense air to pass through = apparently larger image

closest overhead point to the observer = less air density = less refraction

 

the smaller image of sun at the horizon is magnified

the image of the sun at the zenith is less affected

 

[amy G]

23 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Any one of you going to respond? Why not? Afraid to lose face? Personally I'd give you a virtual round of applause if you mange to exit the flat earth abyss.

Again... you are using numbers from a script that do not match reality and then arguing with yourself.

 

Now, you since seem to believe in mathematics so please tell us the distance between 85.4°N 137.4°W and 85.7°N 142.5°W and also between 85.0°N 132.8°W and 86.4°N 169.8°E.

 

Are you going to respond? Why not? Afraid to lose face?

[Comedy Time]

28 minutes ago, amy G said:

Cup your hand... see the truth. There is much more to this as well.

 

From what you quoted:

...cup your hand into a fist and look through it at the 'large' horizon moon. It will immediately shrink in size."

 

 

 

Well duhhhhh....it will "shrink in size" and the optical illusion is gone that makes it appear very slightly bigger. Is this deliberate or does this really simple stuff genuinely confuse you? Once again you evade the whole main issue!

[Comedy Time]

27 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

apparently the sun doesnt change size

refraction of the light depending upon air density will affect the size

closer to the horizon = more dense air to pass through = apparently larger image

closest overhead point to the observer = less air density = less refraction

 

the smaller image of sun at the horizon is magnified

the image of the sun at the zenith is less affected

 

 

Uhuh and you actually believe that big pile of horseshit? The optical illusion says there is NO change to the size. A camera captures the same size no matter where in the sky no matter what angle, no matter where from. And what is your underlying claim - that the Sun is actually a tiny pinprick at the horizon? Or that the air density magnifies it?

 

[amy G]

4 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Well duhhhhh....it will "shrink in size" and the optical illusion is gone that makes it appear very slightly bigger. Is this deliberate or does this really simple stuff genuinely confuse you? Once again you evade the whole main issue!

You have wasted the last 20 pages of your life by working off a script claiming the sun and moon never change size on the horizons. You now know you have been fooled by an optical illusion that is well known, just not to your script writers.

 

You admitted this falsifies your heliocentric beliefs. Welcome to the awakening.

 

 

[Comedy Time]

26 minutes ago, amy G said:

Again... you are using numbers from a script that do not match reality and then arguing with yourself.

 

I am using the NEAREST possible insanity of the Sun skipping across the top of Everest. I don't use a script - show me what numbers do not fit.

 

So far I have shown that the Sun across the top of Everest produces a ludicrous horizon distance and the farther up it goes the more and more ridiculous that becomes. An honest person would know this and see it.

[amy G]

1 minute ago, Comedy Time said:

 

I am using the NEAREST possible insanity of the Sun skipping across the top of Everest. I don't use a script - show me what numbers do not fit.

 

So far I have shown that the Sun across the top of Everest produces a ludicrous horizon distance and the farther up it goes the more and more ridiculous that becomes. An honest person would know this and see it.

I suggest you try actual numbers that fit reality. These don't appear on the scripts so some actual research would come in handy here.

 

Now, please tell us the distance between 85.4°N 137.4°W and 85.7°N 142.5°W and also between 85.0°N 132.8°W and 86.4°N 169.8°E.

 

Are you going to respond? Why not? Afraid to lose face?

[Comedy Time]

1 minute ago, amy G said:

You have wasted the last 20 pages of your life by working off a script claiming the sun and moon never change size on the horizons. You now know you have been fooled by an optical illusion that is well known, just not to your script writers.

 

The sun and moon never change size. Which part of the words "optical illusion" confuses you? I don't have script writers.

 

1 minute ago, amy G said:

You admitted this falsifies your heliocentric beliefs. Welcome to the awakening.

 

A quite pathetic lie. Nowhere was any such admission made. 

[Comedy Time]

Just now, amy G said:

Now, please tell us the distance between 85.4°N 137.4°W and 85.7°N 142.5°W and also between 85.0°N 132.8°W and 86.4°N 169.8°E.

 

Your claim, you do it. You claim to be the mathematician.

[amy G]

5 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

The sun and moon never change size.

No flat earther claimed it does. See how you keep arguing with yourself?

 

5 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

A quite pathetic lie. Nowhere was any such admission made. 

 

18 hours ago, amy G said:

Is it fair to say that if I could prove we see these objects at obviously different sizes, then the entire heliocentric model would need to be rethought?

This was your answer:

Yes. Knock yourself out. Kindly don't use bullshit videos that show the light blooming on the lens - because that is the kind of dishonest shit that flat earth videos excel at.

 

^^^A quite pathetic lie.