The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread

[Mr. Nice]

3 minutes ago, endfreemasonscum said:

Yes, I understand all of that. It is what makes the situation all the more difficult.  

 

No, it explains it perfectly.

 

3 minutes ago, endfreemasonscum said:

Think of east/west flights approaching north/south runways. I am trying to reconcile the force from the two (or more) opposing vectors created in this scenario. That is the first problem.

 

There are no opposing vectors. The plane carries the take off force from the Earth, if it flies North it accounts for the  Coriolis force by the auto-pilot making minute trim adjustments. If the plane is flying west, the Earth is rotating towards it, but it still has the inertia from take off rotating in the same direction. Net result no effect.

 

If it flies west and changes course, the same applies, whatever the Earth is doing relative to it, it carries the same rotational force. Now it is of course affected by winds etc. so is constantly needing trim corrections anyway. But nothing drastic.

 

3 minutes ago, endfreemasonscum said:

My other issue I am having trouble with is understanding how planes can fly what are called "great circle routes." The flight radar sites show many planes flying over the axis of rotation and that seems impossible.

 

Great circle routes are merely the shortest vector.  Once again, because the plane carries the same rotational speed as the Earth it makes no difference. All it must account for is the change in Earth spin at different latitudes, the Coriolis effect and make small trim adjustments in flight.

[endfreemasonscum]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

There are no opposing vectors.

I disagree, but can't explain it properly. And it's hard to even make a pic that explains it. I'll think on it.

 

19 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

Once again, because the plane carries the same rotational speed as the Earth it makes no difference.

This is exactly why it makes all the difference.

[Mr. Nice]

29 minutes ago, zArk said:

the selenelion is observed at dawn however the Moon eclipse (in the helio model) is that of the dusk side of the globe - this refraction diagram is disingenuous to the situation

 

They are the bloody same!!

 

29 minutes ago, zArk said:

The helio model says this is the refracted moon position. Yet we must ask then, if the normal moon observed on december 10th at Albuquerque set at 7.05am when did the refracted image of the eclipse enter the sky and where? Was there room for both the real moon and the refracted moon ???

 

Brain numbing stuff. The Moon seen is refracted by the atmosphere. The Sun and Moon only become visible together very late on after that sequence of images. There is nothing even remotely possible about it at all. That sequence does NOT capture the Selenelion at all. Didn't you even notice? He missed it. the Selenelion occurs just as the Moon is nearing the horizon and just as the sun is coming up and putting the Moon in full Earth shadow.

 

29 minutes ago, zArk said:

Now its impossible for both real moon and refracted image moon to be in the sky at the same time as each have their own helio position on the turny spinny ball thing.

 

You've had it explained to you and yet you still claim it is impossible. You are either trolling or incapable of learning things that contradict your fixed belief system. The rare and short span selenelion eclipse is just visible for a short period and better if you are high up.

29 minutes ago, zArk said:

on TIME AND DATE https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/usa/albuquerque?month=12&year=2011

 

the moon is recorded as steadily falling.

 

Well duhhh. The thing is setting to the West. Did you only just realise this?

 

29 minutes ago, zArk said:

i state it again, there was no refraction, the moon being eclipsed and observed at New mexico was the real moon and that is impossible with the Helio model.

 

Dude, there is no Selenelion eclipse on that sequence - he just missed it. The last image was before Sunrise  and with a tiny crescent. You are talking total bollocks. 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Mr. Nice

[Mr. Nice]

8 minutes ago, endfreemasonscum said:

This is exactly why it makes all the difference.

 

Nope.

[endfreemasonscum]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

Nope.

Remember that you must be flying over the axis of rotation.

[zArk]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

That sequence does NOT capture the Selenelion at all. Didn't you even notice? He missed it. the Selenelion occurs just as the Moon is nearing the horizon and just as the sun is coming up and putting the Moon in full Earth shadow

Sunrise at 7.03am 

 

The moon was steadily descending in the sky until moonset 7.05am

 

The eclipse ended at 7.05am

 

if the selenelion is a refraction how can the real moon be there at the same time? 

 

[DarianF]

14 hours ago, Concerned Citizen said:

 

Do NOT want to really get involved with this "discussion!!!" of Flat Earth / Globe Spinning BUT am intrigued by the back and forth comments etc.

However, this Helicopter reference I have seen mentioned a number of times and my take on this particular aspect is:

 

Relative Velocity. 

Assume the Earth is Spinning (what ever speed you calculate - can't be bother to work that particular value, so just say 100 m/s (yes, I do know the difference between speed and velocity, scalar / vector etc).

 

The helicopter will have that 100 m/s speed (velocity in the direction of rotation) + whatever the take off speed / velocity is. 

It will always have that component of VELOCITY and so will of course land at same spot.

 

Happy to have my words shot to pieces BUT not prepared to get into a slanging match over FE / Global - BUT am finding the "debate" fascinating.

 

Just one question (and perhaps the answer is elsewhere on Mr. Nice's posts) - Does he agree with the fact that the rtpcr test was / is being used in a FRAUDULENT manner?

 

PS - If Earth is Flat and NOT spinning then that "relative" velocity is zero so Helicopter definitely lands as stated!

 

 

https://flatearth.ws/helicopter

 

That seems like a reasonable explanation.

[DaleP]

8 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Like a firmanent?   A permanent firmanent, an enclosed dome.

He shot himself in the foot. Oops

[evanslr]

Why I think the Earth is probably flat and not a sphere. An article I wrote last year.

 

https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2021/03/04/a-rebuttal-to-climate-myths/

[Mr. Nice]

2 hours ago, zArk said:

Sunrise at 7.03am  

 

The moon was steadily descending in the sky until moonset 7.05am

 

The eclipse ended at 7.05am

 

if the selenelion is a refraction how can the real moon be there at the same time? 

 

 

 

So let me understand this latest round of fail.

 

1.  Sun was provably rising at 7.03.

2. Moon was provably visible above the horizon at 7.03 (sets at 7.05).

3. PARTIAL Eclipse ends at 7:05

4. Photographer says he missed a Selenelion by seconds.

 

Now what are these figures you are quoting? They are sea level figures. Where did he observe this ......at a high elevation so that he could try to capture/witness this rare event. The actual eclipse was listed as a partial eclipse at that location with possibly (unconfirmed) a very short full eclipse visible only at higher altitudes. He failed to capture it.  

 

This went full tedious about 6 posts ago and you are still struggling. Are we nearly done?

 

The forum is on baited breath waiting for you to concede this complete guff. It's also waiting for you to explain how any of this is possible on a flat earth!   

[Mr. Nice]

2 minutes ago, evanslr said:

Why I think the Earth is probably flat and not a sphere. An article I wrote last year.

 

"Even the famous Blue Marble image was faked. It was a brilliantly-ingenious bit of camera-trickery, fooled the entire world, and is just one instance of footage of the Earth being fabricated. The video below explains how the Blue Marble image was faked, with the Apollo 11 crew themselves performing the deception."

 

Blue marble was taken by Apollo 17. And that video has been posted on this forum with monotonous and innacurate regularity. A few days ago was the last time:

 

I'll just post the same here, nobody read it anyway, or paid any attention:

 

"The very definition of "Really? Not this shite again".

 

You would never in a million years get the whole earth in a window from orbit. The deceptive movie ignores the middle TV transmission that shows the camera zooming out and the Earth disappears off to the side of the window!

 

So many people suck up this crap without checking it. Here is a video I did oh just 10 years ago. Not one hoax believer has ever acknowledged the absurdity of this claim:

 

 

 

So to summarise: You claim that a video about faking video on Apollo 11 which fraudulently omitted footage debunking itself, was how a still photograph with a Hasselblad was faked 3 years later on Apollo 17. Very unimpressive.

 

 

[zArk]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

1.  Sun was provably rising at 7.03.

2. Moon was provably visible above the horizon at 7.03 (sets at 7.05).

3. PARTIAL Eclipse ends at 7:05

4. Photographer says he missed a Selenelion by seconds

 

were both refracted moon and real moon in the new mexico  sky at the same time ? 

 

[Mr. Nice]

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

were both refracted moon and real moon in the new mexico  sky at the same time ? 

 

 

No. 

 

 

The forum is on baited breath waiting for you to concede this complete guff. It's also waiting for you to explain how any of this is possible on a flat earth!   

 

[Mr. Nice]

  

On 3/12/2022 at 4:45 PM, Ziggy Sawdust said:

 

I decided that we have yet another deceptive post. Picture one uses curvature way, way beyond that of the Earth to scale. To all intents and purposes it is very flat to the horizon. It is 3.2 miles away and 6/7 feet of curve.

 

BUT, that also highlights a wonderful point that flat earthers blather on about. The top picture where curve is present creates a more spotlight reflection. On the Globe, this is known as the Sub Solar Point.

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Mr. Nice

[zArk]

47 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

No. 

 

well of course. Theres only one moon and the partial eclipse began at 4.33am until 7.05am which is when the moon set.

 

There is no refraction there never was. You jumped right in and stated Refraction like it popped up 1st on a search engine but that seems silly doesnt it

 

The moon is above the horizon and so is the sun , The helio model fails

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by zArk

[Mr. Nice]

Just now, zArk said:

well of course. Theres only one moon and the partial eclipse began at 4.33am until 7.05am which is when the moon set.

 

OMG, he's still firing at the pot with gibberish. Yes. Well done. There is only one Moon. The image from space is refracted by varying degrees of atmosphere.

 

Just now, zArk said:

There is no refraction there never was.

 

Yes there is, there always was and always will be.

 

Just now, zArk said:

You jumped right in and stated Refraction like it popped up 1st on a search engine but that seems silly doesnt it

 

I didn't jump anywhere. I said refraction because that is how the rare event works. I understand how it works you see. It may seem silly to somebody who fails at every request to supply what is requested, who thinks the Sun goes crescent all on its own

 

Just now, zArk said:

The moon is above the horizon and so is the sun , The helio model fails

 

Nope. It is perfectly possible. Millions of astronomers, scientists, cosmologists, all say so. But somehow you think you know better because you don't understand what refraction is.

 

 

[Mr. Nice]

4 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

Remember that you must be flying over the axis of rotation.

 

I remember. I really think you need to just visualise yourself walking all around an open top bus.  In flight, there is only Coriolis and that is very, very gradual and catered for with a little trim here and there.

[zArk]

 

2 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

OMG, he's still firing at the pot with gibberish. Yes. Well done. There is only one Moon. The image from space is refracted by varying degrees of atmosphere.

 

you seem to have a problem with time stamps

 

the Selenelion finished at 7.05am NewMexico, the Moon set at 7.05 am

 

the Selenelion is the moon , there is no refraction. it began at 4.33am in the New Mexico sky and at 7.03 the Sunrose

 

both Sun and Moon were in the sky. The globe model fails

 

5 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

I didn't jump anywhere. I said refraction because that is how the rare event works. I understand how it works you see. It may seem silly to somebody who fails at every request to supply what is requested, who thinks the Sun goes crescent all on its own

 

here is the model for an eclipse

 

Due to the Umbra MODEL

the New Mexico selenelion should have the bottom half of the moon in darkness rising up to the top.

 

however it was top half dark dropping to the bottom

 

[Mr. Nice]

1 minute ago, zArk said:

you seem to have a problem with time stamps

 

Nope. They are sea level. Elevation give earlier visible sunrise and later visible moonset.

1 minute ago, zArk said:

the Selenelion finished at 7.05am NewMexico, the Moon set at 7.05 am

 

 

At sea level. Duhhhh. But so what, to the second?

 

1 minute ago, zArk said:

the Selenelion is the moon , there is no refraction. 

 

The selenelion is the eclipse name. The visible Moon is refracted as is the Sun. It's called physics. Google it. Go learn some.

 

1 minute ago, zArk said:

both Sun and Moon were in the sky. The globe model fails

 

Repeat noise. Refraction and elevated position.

 

1 minute ago, zArk said:

the New Mexico selenelion should have the bottom half of the moon in darkness rising up to the top. however it was top half dark dropping to the bottom

 

Repeat noise. Explained already, with a colossal failure to understand simple drawings ensuing.

 

[DaleP]

OK, so it seems that the earth could be considered stationary if it's relative to other i.e. outside galaxy. Therefore, a helicopter would land on the same spot an hour later.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD7C4V9smG4

 

 

ah there is a travelator somewhere in London....underground?

I wouldn't recommend jumping up and down at Heathrow one though.

Edited March 14, 2022 by DaleP

[endfreemasonscum]

2 hours ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

I remember. I really think you need to just visualise yourself walking all around an open top bus.  In flight, there is only Coriolis and that is very, very gradual and catered for with a little trim here and there.

I haven't explained it well as the problem is not that. We are talking about great circle routes. Many flights cross the axis of rotation between 70th and 75th parallel.

 

The Earth is spinning at around 300 mph here and the atmosphere, as you point out is basically attached to the Earth. Look at it from this point of view...

 

Do you see now what happens to the aircraft? Is this making sense at all?

 

[Mr. Nice]

6 minutes ago, endfreemasonscum said:

I haven't explained it well as the problem is not that. We are talking about great circle routes. Many flights cross the axis of rotation between 70th and 75th parallel.

 

The Earth is spinning at around 300 mph here and the atmosphere, as you point out is basically attached to the Earth. Look at it from this point of view...

 

Do you see now what happens to the aircraft? Is this making sense at all?

 

Nope. From the airplane perspective north or south is slower or faster. It needs minor course corrections. Otherwise it's just going round with the planet. 

[endfreemasonscum]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

Nope. From the airplane perspective north or south is slower or faster. It needs minor course corrections. Otherwise it's just going round with the planet. 

A plane travels north at 500 mph (one vector).

The same plane is moving sideways to the east at around 300 mph between the 70th and 75th (2nd vector).

As that plane crosses the axis of rotation, the force immediately switches, pushing the plane to the west at around 300 mph, as it is still stuck to the atmosphere that rotates with the planet.

Therein lies my problem.

 

 

[Mr. Nice]

1 minute ago, endfreemasonscum said:

A plane travels north at 500 mph (one vector).

The same plane is moving sideways to the east at around 300 mph between the 70th and 75th (2nd vector).

As that plane crosses the axis of rotation, the force immediately switches, pushing the plane to the west at around 300 mph, as it is still stuck to the atmosphere that rotates with the planet.

Therein lies my problem.

 

 

 

The bolded bit. No it doesn't. Therein lies your problem.

[endfreemasonscum]

1 minute ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

The bolded bit. No it doesn't. Therein lies your problem.

Pretend your finger is a plane and move it over the axis of rotation on the gif above.