Why the Earth cannot possibly be flat.

[DarianF]

 

[Ziggy Sawdust]

2 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

 

Never had you down as a balltard mate.

This is the end of a beautiful relationship.

[Mr. Nice]

28 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

Earth is 70% water.

 

 

Is it? Says who? I ask because it would appear that you are taking facts from a group of scientists who tell you how they know this - clue - it's a planet. 

 

28 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

Water is always level on its surface.

 

The world is pretty damn big. The curve of the oceans is so small that those who don't like science can be forgiven for thinking it's flat. But it has a gentle curve.

 

28 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

No allowance for curvature is made in bridge and railway construction.

 

That is a lie. Every single large structure in the world have the top of the suspension bridges farther apart than the bottom.

 

28 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

The Panama Canal was built without any regard to curvature.

 

Another lie. They just set local levels for sea-level because as they go around the curve, the local level changes accordingly.

Suez Canal – FlatEarth.ws

 

 

28 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

As was the 102 mile long bridge in China.

 

Wow, lots of lies in one post:

 

 

28 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

The earth is flatter than the flattest pancake in Flat Town, Flatsville.

Deal with it.

 

Nope, really it isn't. Go to the clue shop and buy one.

[DarianF]

1 minute ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

 

Never had you down as a balltard mate.

This is the end of a beautiful relationship.

 

I'll tell you what, walk to the edge of the earth and show me where the flat board ends. Then I'll apologise.

[Mr. Nice]

3 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

 

Never had you down as a balltard mate.

This is the end of a beautiful relationship.

 

Rudeness, hope somebody logs that somewhere Notice everyone how he didn't actually address the video. Are we seeing a pattern yet again?

[DarianF]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

Rudeness, hope somebody logs that somewhere Notice everyone how he didn't actually address the video. Are we seeing a pattern yet again?

 

No matter what @Ziggy Sawdust says, I still love him... even if he thinks I'm a balltard. ;-)

[peter]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

Rudeness, hope somebody logs that somewhere Notice everyone how he didn't actually address the video. Are we seeing a pattern yet again?

Don't feel bad he called me a balltard as well and blocked me 

Well that's the end of the flat earth thread  ,they have all moved to the affirmative only thread where they don't have to answer any questions ( not that they ever did) tell themselves how cleaver they all are and massage their highly inflated egos. Alexa blocked me as well ,I bet god told her to ,I'm still laughing

It seems to me they got the shits ,grabbed their ball (pun intended) and went home

Edited March 14, 2022 by peter

[Mr. Nice]

1 hour ago, Basket Case said:

@Mr. Nice 

 

A request / question.. 

My Maths is extremely rusty. 

There is an accepted formula to measure the amount of fall / curve. 

Something something something SQUARED. 

This gives the expected curve. Which is a big point that is contested. 

I read recently (but didn't totally understand - hence the rusty statement) or saw in a video that the accepted formula doesn't actually give the curve of a BALL. It gives the curve of an oval...? It's an 'exponential formula' hence the oval and not the ball curve..? 

Can you please look into this and possibly explain it in a way that anyone and everyone can get their heads around. 

Or am I barking up a wrong tree..? 

BC 

 

 

 

It's close enough for both - at sea level and ignoring refraction. The squaring works for an entire parabola but just the bottom part of the Earth curve. So if you took your circle above, perhaps a 10 degree segment would be accurate, then as you went higher around, it becomes less and less accurate. It's ok for short distances, 10 degrees on that circle is 2,500 miles. I wouldn't accurately like to use it for more than a hundred miles though.

 

Curvature = Miles squared multiplied by 8 inches. 

 

Eight Inches Per Mile Squared – FlatEarth.ws

Edited March 14, 2022 by Mr. Nice

[DarianF]

2 minutes ago, peter said:

Don't feel bad he called me a balltard as well and blocked me 

Well that's the end of the flat earth thread  ,they have all moved to the affirmative only thread where they don't have to answer any questions ( not that they ever did) tell themselves how cleaver they all are and massage their highly inflated egos. Alexa blocked me as well ,I bet god told her to ,I'm still laughing

 

Fighting flat-Earth theory

https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/

 

How to debate a flat-Earther

https://www.space.com/how-to-debate-flat-earther.html

 

Flat Earthers: What They Believe and Why

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/flat-earthers-what-they-believe-and-why/

 

But still. It's entertaining when the other discussion threads are dead.

[DarianF]

Glad I found this guy. Great stuff.

 

 

[Mr. Nice]

10 minutes ago, peter said:

Don't feel bad he called me a balltard as well and blocked me 

Well that's the end of the flat earth thread  ,they have all moved to the affirmative only thread where they don't have to answer any questions ( not that they ever did) tell themselves how cleaver they all are and massage their highly inflated egos. Alexa blocked me as well ,I bet god told her to ,I'm still laughing

It seems to me they got the shits ,grabbed their ball (pun intended) and went home

 

I find it quite sad really - just refusing to debate honestly

[DarianF]

1 minute ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

I find it quite sad really - just refusing to debate honestly

 

Think of it like some fun in your spare time, this will prevent it from dragging you down because it can get depressing. Don't get drawn into a massive debate, because it's obviously absurd. Keep your powder dry for real debates that are worth full investment of time and energy. That would be my advice.

[Mr. Nice]

  

5 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

So, I've had some time now to actually look at this. And honestly, for the last couple of days my head has been spinning, as I am no longer sure of our world is.

 

 

And this was a fascinating read...

Zetetic Astronomy

Earth Not a Globe

by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham)

[1881]

https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/#contents

 

Being a truth seeker, did you at any time seek to verify the claims this big pile of guff refers to? Why not!?

 

Rebuttals to Eric Dubay’s “200 Proofs Earth is not a Spinning Ball” – FlatEarth.ws

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

Curvature = Miles squared multiplied by 8 inches. 

So...say 5 miles.

5 miles squared = 25 x 8" = 200" = just over 16.5 feet over a 5 mile distance ?

 

[Mr. Nice]

1 minute ago, DarianF said:

 

Think of it like some fun in your spare time, this will prevent it from dragging you down because it can get depressing. Don't get drawn into a massive debate, because it's obviously absurd. Keep your powder dry for real debates that are worth full investment of time and energy. That would be my advice.

 

I have been blocked from posting outside the members only area. Censorship and the opposite of what Icke preaches.

[Mr. Nice]

1 minute ago, Basket Case said:

So...say 5 miles.

5 miles squared = 25 x 8" = 200" = just over 16.5 feet over a 5 mile distance ?

 

That is more than accurate enough.

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

Just now, Mr. Nice said:

 

That is more than accurate enough.

So the equation actually does describe an oval.......but can be used for a circle because it's close enough and errs on the side of safety for circular figures ?
 

[DarianF]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

I have been blocked from posting outside the members only area. Censorship and the opposite of what Icke preaches.

 

Don't blame Icke. He has nothing to do with the operation of the forums.

[Mr. Nice]

Just now, Basket Case said:

So the equation actually does describe an oval.......but can be used for a circle because it's close enough and errs on the side of safety for circular figures ?
 

 

It is for a massive parabola, but for short distances there is virtually no difference. The bottom of a parabola overlays a circle very closely.

[Mr. Nice]

1 minute ago, DarianF said:

Don't blame Icke. He has nothing to do with the operation of the forums.

 

I most certainly do not.

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

1 minute ago, Mr. Nice said:

It is for a massive parabola

Can you explain / show this 'massive parabola'...?

[DarianF]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

I most certainly do not.

 

My maths is shit, so just a question I'd like to ask you. Regarding what Mr. Hancock says here (time code below):

 

https://youtu.be/E3TQbV6cfQM?t=99

 

If his calculations are right, the Ancient Egyptians must have also know the Earth wasn't flat? It's not a flat earth video, but I just wanted to know if he's on the right track with those calculations.

 

Cheers.

[DarianF]

Eratosthenes

 

 

[Mr. Nice]

14 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

Can you explain / show this 'massive parabola'...?

 

This bloke explains it perfectly:

 

 

[endfreemasonscum]

20 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

So the equation actually does describe an oval.......but can be used for a circle because it's close enough and errs on the side of safety for circular figures ?
 

I have been looking at this same thing. The 8 inches per mile squared that flat Earthers use to predict how much drop we should expect seems very accurate up until a certain point. I have worked out some examples from what the math actually says and have compared that with the 8 inches/mi^2.

 

The first mile is identical. The drop will be 8 inches or .67 (.666?) feet.

At 10 miles, we start to see a slight difference. The actual math shows a drop of 800.2 inches and the 8 inch formula shows a drop of 800 inches.

At 100 miles, the difference is still a relatively small 32.97 (33?) inches.

At 200 miles, the difference is still a relatively small 23.77 feet.

At 300 miles, the difference is still a relatively small 101.56 feet, but as we can see, becoming more substantial.

At 500 miles, it is off by 712 feet.

At 1000 miles, we get a difference of 11,158 feet, or about 2 miles here.

 

I also noticed, that as the distances increase, the flat Earthers are actually short-changing themselves by using that formula, as the actual math proves a greater drop.

 

The last few days have been crazy with this stuff, but actually quite interesting. Hope that made sense.

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by endfreemasonscum