The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread

[zArk]

1 hour ago, webtrekker said:

Two arguments, as presented by Flat Earthers, are debunked in this article. I'd like to know the opinions of the Flat Earthers who post in this thread.

 

The Flat Earth Map

Although there is no single official map of the flat Earth, by far the most commonly-used version is shown below ...

 

Flat Earth Map
Source: commons.wikimedia.org

This map was not originally created by flat-earthers. It's a type of map originally created and used by globe-earthers, called an azimuthal equidistant projection. Early versions of this map date back to the 11th century. Its purpose is to project a globe Earth onto a flat surface to use as a two-dimensional map.

 

More recently, this map was adopted by proponents of the flat Earth theory. Whereas the original map was not intended to show the real positions of countries relative to each other (because you can't project a sphere onto a circle without distortion), flat-earthers consider it a real, more-or-less accurate map of the Earth.

 

The obvious problem with this map is that the distances between countries are dramatically different to the distances that have been measured in the real world. Flat-earthers counter this by claiming that those measurements are wrong. This means that all globe-based maps, distances and calculations used by anyone navigating between countries are fundamentally wrong.

 

How could this be? If it was true, planes would routinely run out of fuel or make significant errors in travel times.

Flat-earthers have two counter-arguments:

 

Argument 1: Travel times do match the flat-earth model but international travelers incorrectly report them.

 

For this to work, every single international traveler has to get their travel times wrong in such a way that looks like they were traveling around a globe.

This would mean that every single international pilot and and sailor, both professional and recreational, would have to be lying. You can't plan a long journey on a globe-based map that would work on a flat Earth—the differences are too significant.

 

In addition, every single passenger would have to believe they traveled for a certain time while the actual time was vastly different. Flat-earthers argue that passengers are mistaken or deceived. Perhaps they could have been drugged into sleep and this would account for the time discrepancy. However, this makes no sense when people in planes are in constant contact with people in their home countries. You can't add or remove hours from a plane flight without anyone noticing.

 

I live in New Zealand, where travel across the ocean to other pacific islands is very common. I've been to some of them myself, members of my family have been to more than I. The travel times are those predicted by a globe model, not a flat Earth. I've also traveled to the other side of the world. Again, travel times match a globe, not a flat surface.

 

Argument 2: Travel times only appear to match the globe-earth model because wind and ocean currents affect travel time.

 

It is sometimes claimed that planes travel faster or slower than expected because they're being pushed or slowed by wind in ways not understood by navigators. Similar claims are made for ships and ocean currents. This would require a staggering level of incompetence from every single navigator on Earth. For example, every pilot or navigator would have to fail to notice that they're moving faster or slower over the ground than they should be.

 

It would also require very specific patterns of air and ocean currents all around the world that precisely speed up or slow down all aircraft and ships by exactly the right amount to make it seem like they were on a globe. Some currents would need to speed up planes that were flying in opposite directions. Even if such currents exist, are we to believe that no professional person in the history of international travel or meteorology has correctly modelled them?

Summary

Every credible measurement ever made of distances between countries match a globe model. None match a flat-earth model.

 

The differences between the flat-earth map and the globe map are extreme. For example, the distance around the flat-earth Antarctica is well over ten times the globe-earth Antarctica. There are many commercial plane flights with similarly dramatic differences, for example, compare the distance between New Zealand and Chile on a globe to the distance between them on the map above. There's no way to reconcile this kind of discrepancy.

 

 

the flights North of equator to North of equator NEVER pop south

the flights South to South do pop North

 

no stop overs, no drops at major airports, no commercially driven stops

 

n.b can you post the link to the article as i would like to see where the 2 'flat earther argumemts' are found. 

 

 

[webtrekker]

1 hour ago, zArk said:

 

n.b can you post the link to the article as i would like to see where the 2 'flat earther argumemts' are found.

 

Sure, but it will have to be later tonight when I'm back on my PC.

 

 

 

[webtrekker]

7 hours ago, zArk said:

the flights North of equator to North of equator NEVER pop south

the flights South to South do pop North

 

no stop overs, no drops at major airports, no commercially driven stops

 

n.b can you post the link to the article as i would like to see where the 2 'flat earther argumemts' are found. 

 

 

 

Here you go - https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/map.html

 

 

 

[alexa]

8 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

 

 

 

Yer right, this petrifies me to think that we live on a spinning ball hurtling through space orbiting a giant molten globe, how dangerous is this ? 

 

 

 

 

 

[zArk]

7 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

Here you go - https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/map.html

 

 

 

ta. i dont know which 'flat earth' people sphere believer dave spoke to but i feel he is mischaracterising a few debate points

 

my thoughts on the article are;

i dont mention EVERY SINGLE flight but i reckon the debate point was regarding 'southern hemisphere' flights especially New Zealand to SOuth America,

dave is assuming ocean size is correctly recorded. there are recorded discrepancies between measured distances and GPS claimed distances. GPS and radar is a NASA owned tech and as we know NASA is a creator of fantasy its untrustworthy.

Pilots over water would have no way to measure the plane speed when in a wind current.

 

jet streams are used so i dont know why Dave is ignoring the fact

 

i saw a little video  "why planes dont fly over the pacific" (granted its northern)

 

SUMMARY:

• The other primary consideration for determining flight paths are air currents, namely the jet streams. These high-altitude air currents exist near the top of the troposphere.
• - There are 4 main jet streams,  in each hemisphere, and thanks to the Earth’s rotation, they mostly flow west to east.
• - Flying with a jet stream can shave several hours off of a trip, but flying into it can slow the plane down considerably.
• - It’s also worth noting the risks associated with jet streams. The biggest hazard is a kind of turbulence known as clear-air turbulence, which occurs along the edges of the streams. -
• The jet stream mostly affects things tens of thousands of feet in the air, and the curvature of the Earth doesn’t really matter unless you’re traveling hundreds of miles per hour over vast distances.

 

so the jet streams are used and determine flight paths like below. the SA to aukland travels in the far outter jet stream while the aukland to SA travels in a closer ring jet stream

 

 

 

 

[alexa]

56 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

i saw a little video  "why planes dont fly over the pacific"

 

This is right zArk, they only use the Pacific for their rocket dump ground.

 

 

 

 

 

[alexa]

From the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible.  The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century.  Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view.  Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone.  Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch. 

 

https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Appendix_A.html

[webtrekker]

4 hours ago, zArk said:

ta. i dont know which 'flat earth' people sphere believer dave spoke to but i feel he is mischaracterising a few debate points

 

my thoughts on the article are;

i dont mention EVERY SINGLE flight but i reckon the debate point was regarding 'southern hemisphere' flights especially New Zealand to SOuth America,

dave is assuming ocean size is correctly recorded. there are recorded discrepancies between measured distances and GPS claimed distances. GPS and radar is a NASA owned tech and as we know NASA is a creator of fantasy its untrustworthy.

Pilots over water would have no way to measure the plane speed when in a wind current.

 

jet streams are used so i dont know why Dave is ignoring the fact

 

i saw a little video  "why planes dont fly over the pacific" (granted its northern)

 

SUMMARY:

• The other primary consideration for determining flight paths are air currents, namely the jet streams. These high-altitude air currents exist near the top of the troposphere.
• - There are 4 main jet streams,  in each hemisphere, and thanks to the Earth’s rotation, they mostly flow west to east.
• - Flying with a jet stream can shave several hours off of a trip, but flying into it can slow the plane down considerably.
• - It’s also worth noting the risks associated with jet streams. The biggest hazard is a kind of turbulence known as clear-air turbulence, which occurs along the edges of the streams. -
• The jet stream mostly affects things tens of thousands of feet in the air, and the curvature of the Earth doesn’t really matter unless you’re traveling hundreds of miles per hour over vast distances.

 

so the jet streams are used and determine flight paths like below. the SA to aukland travels in the far outter jet stream while the aukland to SA travels in a closer ring jet stream

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but the Jetstreams (all 4 of them) are caused by the ROTATION of the Earth! You can't use Jetstreams in an argument about FE without acknowledging this fact.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by webtrekker

[webtrekker]

4 hours ago, zArk said:

dave is assuming ocean size is correctly recorded. there are recorded discrepancies between measured distances and GPS claimed distances. GPS and radar is a NASA owned tech and as we know NASA is a creator of fantasy its untrustworthy.

Pilots over water would have no way to measure the plane speed when in a wind current.

 

Aircraft don't just use GPS. They use GPS, Inertial Navigation Systems (gyroscopes), and VOR and DME radio stations. These systems are all fused together to log an accurate speed and position of the aircraft.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by webtrekker

[zArk]

1 hour ago, webtrekker said:

 

Aircraft don't just use GPS. They use GPS, Inertial Navigation Systems (gyroscopes), and VOR and DME radio stations. These systems are all fused together to log an accurate speed and position of the aircraft.

 

 

 

chill

 

i am talking about specific flights whereas dave groups every flight and every passenger

 

as we are aware all these systems use calculated data to claim measurement. the calculation is key.

 

where la800 and la801 actually go is unknown , trust the discourse if you wish

how fast the planes are travelling is unknown , trust the data if you wish

 

remember my basis, my post that underpins my posts. flight data in the controversial areas is fake. 

[webtrekker]

3 hours ago, alexa said:

From the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible.

 

You can't take the Bible LITERALLY. There are too many contradictions within it for it to be taken literally.

 

For example (seeing as you are so fond of Bible quotes Alexa) ...

 

God said, “Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts of every kind.” And it was so. God made wild beasts of every kind and cattle of every kind, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. And God saw that this was good. And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.” And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:24-27).

 

So what is the order of creation here? First God created the animals, and then he created man and woman, apparently creating man and woman at the same time. Now let us look at the more familiar second version that appears just a little later in Genesis.

 

The Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being··· The Lord God said, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him.” And the Lord God formed out of the earth all of the wild beasts and all of the birds of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that would be its name. And the man gave names to all the cattle and to the birds of the sky and to all the wild beasts; but for Adam no fitting helper was found. So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman; and he brought her to the man (Genesis 2:7, 18-22).

 

In the second version, God first created man, then the animals, and lastly woman. This differs from the first version where the animals came first before man, and as we noticed arguably man and woman were then formed at the same time after the animals. Clearly, these versions are different, so if you take one literally you cannot take the other one literally.

 

 

 

[webtrekker]

13 minutes ago, zArk said:

chill

 

Actually, I will chill.

 

The other members that were involved in this discussion seem to have lost interest and I'm rapidly losing interest myself.

 

In fact, to be brutally honest, none of us even know what reality or consciousness are, so we may all just be pissing up a virtual wall with our contradictory views.

 

For this reason ... I'm out!

 

 

 

 

 

[zArk]

2 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

Yes, but the Jetstreams (all 4 of them) are caused by the ROTATION of the Earth! You can't use Jetstreams in an argument about FE without acknowledging this fact.

 

 

 

what part of Airys Failure did you refuse to acknowledge?

 

and was Sagnacs experiment inconclusive for you?

 

No-one has ever replicated the experiments and gotten different results..

 

the earth is stationary is a fact and proven

 

BTW you think there are only 4 jetstreams? There are many many 'jet streams' up there at different altitudes.

Edited October 6, 2022 by zArk

[zArk]

11 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

 

Actually, I will chill.

 

The other members that were involved in this discussion seem to have lost interest and I'm rapidly losing interest myself.

 

In fact, to be brutally honest, none of us even know what reality or consciousness are, so we may all just be pissing up a virtual wall with our contradictory views.

 

For this reason ... I'm out!

 

 

i was referring to the article by Dave. You seem to be making it all about you.

 

You invited comment on the article , i made comment on dave and his article.

 

 

[webtrekker]

22 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

BTW you think there are only 4 jetstreams? There are many many 'jet streams' up there at different altitudes.

 

Im not stupid. There are 4 PRIMARY Jetstreams, as you well know.

 

Anyway, as I said, I'm no longer contributing to this ridiculous thread.

 

 

[alexa]

3 hours ago, webtrekker said:

You can't take the Bible LITERALLY. There are too many contradictions within it for it to be taken literally.

 

 

No there are not, read Genesis 1 to 31 properly & you'll see there are no contradictions, in fact Genesis 1 to 10 explains the firmament, earth, stars, moon & the sun perfectly & I couldn't put it better myself.

[alexa]

2 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

Anyway, as I said, I'm no longer contributing to this ridiculous thread.

 

Why ? Are you finding it a tad to hard to prove a spinning ball ? Don't worry we've all been there.

[sickofallthebollocks]

[Grumpy Owl]

3 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

More trolling BS I see

[zArk]

15 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

i would say that when i notice planes in the sky they do end up like the end right  picture on middle row, obviously smaller.

 

n.b i think all camps geocentric, heli and flat earth have reached the consensus that the 'horizon' is way too short a distance to see a curve.

We all acknowledge that in whatever the model an astronomical height of observation would be required to see with our eyes evidence.

 

[alexa]

 

[alexa]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11297145/William-Shatner-says-going-space-Blue-Origin-rocket-filled-overwhelming-sadness.html

 

'The beauty isn't out there, it's down here': Star Trek star William Shatner says going to space on Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin rocket felt like 'a funeral' and filled him with 'overwhelming sadness'

 

• William Shatner, 91, said that seeing Earth from space aboard Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin rocket last fall was a profoundly saddening experience
• In an excerpt from his new memoir, Boldly Go: Reflections on a Life of Awe and Wonder, The Star Trek star said the experience made him see Earth's fragility
• Shatner said that rather than feeling filled with awe at the sight of space, he was saddened to think of how mankind abuses Earth

The actors wrote that the experience made him realize just how beautiful and precious life on Earth is

 

What's he on about, he didn't go up that far 

[SuperstarNeilC]

Michael Morton in Los Angeles has noticed the moon in the sky in the daytime.

 

I live in Northwest England and see the same thing.

 

 

[peter]

I've been away for a week ,I see nothing has changed, more  brilliant memes and shit tube videos all done by someone else, god forbid anyone of you having a thought of your own

[alexa]

5 hours ago, peter said:

I've been away for a week

 

Where have you been, the Moon