Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[Gralin]

its flat from a plane window

even most the globeheads now accept this

Depends how high the plane is flying.

And it's not flat at lower heights you just can't see the curve, you can calculate it mathematically.

We did the eyes looking out the window thing on about page one.
And your eyes aren't that cool,ask a hawk or eagle. Humans have poor eyesight and poor perception,we aren't as bright as our egos are telling us. If we weren't so stupid,the poor Olinguito would have received far greater recognition on our flat planet,and MH370 wouldn't be lost.

SI is the key here,I believe we are capable of this. 95% chance I'd say.

The what is to be gained question has been answered 50 times. No one is sure. Have you studied FE theory at all?

Our eyesight is good enough to detect the curve at a great enough height works the same as any other sphere, you have to be a certain distance from the surface to tell the shape.

An undiscovered small animal on a large planet is a straw man argument when we are talking about something backed up by physics and math.

Still don't know what is gained by a decades long systematic cover up of the shape of the planet.

As our understanding of the universe we live in grows sometimes what we thought was true we find no longer is, sometimes we find further proof that what we thought was true is.

 

[Total Power]

Still don't know what is gained by a decades long systematic cover up of the shape of the planet.

As our understanding of the universe we live in grows sometimes what we thought was true we find no longer is, sometimes we find further proof that what we thought was true is.

I really wanna know who is guarding these bloody walls and how can i travel to space by flying above it? so these walls been guarded for 100s of years by a secret agreement which includes all governments over 100s and thousands of generations. This is ******ed really. Anyone who went on a cruise west of Hawaii would know know its too warm to have giant ice walls in that lattitude for 1000s of years even. You would reckon wikileaks would atleast speak about these classified places

 

[cannot]

Taken in real time, from Space station, also his go-pro cam (not a fish eye lens before you play that card)

sadly the standard go pro camera is a fish eye distortion as far as i am aware

the official website might be useful: https://gopro.com/support/articles/how-can-i-remove-the-distortion-fisheye-effect-in-gopro-studio

GoPro photos have that distinctive fisheye look. But that might not be what you want all the time. Here's an effective and quick way to remove the fisheye look using Lightroom. The footage and photos you get from GoPros comes with that distinctive fisheye look.
How to Remove the Fisheye Effect from GoPro Photos
https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/remove-fisheye-gopro-photos

flat eh? ^

...furthermore, he landed in roughly the same spot he took off from.... is the world spinning at the same rate where he was in the sky, as what is is on the ground?

^ lol

'tis a bit worrying a shit drink company is seemingly the better evidence of a fast moving (multi directional) , pear shaped earth being presented

You're basing your 30% chance on.... What? The reason science teaches the earth is a globe is because the evidence points that way. Why should resources be unnecessarily diverted to support a theory that relies heavily on pseudo-science and quasi-religious arguments? I have no problem with religious ideas around a flat earth being taught in RE lessons, but as a scientific theory FE is completely full of holes.

the mainstream scientific theories are full of holes, big bang, globe earth, gravity, evolution, we accept them anyway

tbf i do not think christians teach flat earth in schools

Depends how high the plane is flying.

And it's not flat at lower heights you just can't see the curve, you can calculate it mathematically.

most people fly on commercial airliners which you cant see the curve, as you asserted last night

you can calculate it mathematically (which is a different thing, from seeing it from your plane window seat) , yet we can still see with your human eyes things that mathematically that are hidden behind the curve of the earth, like cities or mountains which is pretty neat i think

 

[cannot]

You can't mix and match theories..

globeheads, masters of inconsistency

You're right - the thread is 90 pages long. I don't have the time to go through it all. If you have the answers regarding the means of propulsion for the flat earth's upward motion through space, then surely it's not too much of a hardship to provide it?

I'm also curious as to your consistent use of logical fallacies. You denied the use of the Red Herring fallacy earlier but by trying to imply we cannot understand the shape or form of our world because we don't yet know the details of every particle in existence (and where do you get your 4% figure from by the way?), you are being deliberately misleading. I would submit you are being evasive, and passive-aggressive, in making such arguments, so I would urge you to heed your own advice about anger and drop the rhetoric.

To further the Red Herring analogy, it's like saying we can't issue medicine because we don't understand every aspect of the brain. It's the most vague connection to the subject but doesn't actually address the subject.

I already pointed out to you your Strawman fallacy regarding 'the blog army'. I never issued a call to arms. I merely reproduced one part of our conversation. You have obviously ignored this, purposefully, which to be highlights dishonesty on your part.

Perhaps we should make this interesting. A one-on-one discussion, five posts each, a more formal debate, as it were, right here on Big Footy, or if you prefer, somewhere like debate.org?

i believe whats hes getting at is most matter in the universe is located 'inside' black holes

(apparently)

maybe continue the discussion here instead of debate.org

 

[Gralin]

sadly the standard go pro camera is a fish eye distortion as far as i am aware

the official website might be useful: https://gopro.com/support/articles/how-can-i-remove-the-distortion-fisheye-effect-in-gopro-studio

GoPro photos have that distinctive fisheye look. But that might not be what you want all the time. Here's an effective and quick way to remove the fisheye look using Lightroom. The footage and photos you get from GoPros comes with that distinctive fisheye look.
How to Remove the Fisheye Effect from GoPro Photos
https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/remove-fisheye-gopro-photos

flat eh? ^

he also landed in roughly the same spot he took off from.... is the world spinning at the same rate where he was in the sky, as what is is on the ground?

^ lol

'tis a bit worrying a shit drink company is seemingly the better evidence of a fast moving (multi directional) , pear shaped earth being presented



the mainstream scientific theories are full of holes, big bang, globe earth, gravity, evolution, we accept them anyway

tbf i do not think christians teach flat earth in schools



most people fly on commercial airliners which you cant see the curve, as you asserted last night

you can calculate it mathematically (which is a different thing, from seeing it from your plane window seat) , yet we can still see with your human eyes things that mathematically that are hidden behind the curve of the earth, like cities or mountains which is pretty neat i think

how do you figure you can't see it on commercial airliners? I don't mean every flight, you need the right combination of circumstances to be in a position to see it, but you can achieve that on a commercial flight

 

[cannot]

But but but but 4% of the universe known to man! so lets ignore what we know and lets build a totally bullshit hypothesis based on fantasies and pseudo science. Where is this bloody ice wall in the Atlantic and the Pacific? i fly LA-Sydney route quite often, i am yet to fall out earth.

What we observed so far is a hoax and the simulation hypothesis despite being in its infancy is used more often than that. Oh a scientist proposed a hologram hypothesis LOL lets all jump on that, but a scientist propose something "i dont like" , lets discard it.

according to you string theory is pseudo science

Theres little evidence for us to say its proper science, its speculative science, theres some evidence available but not enough to call it "science.

how do you figure you can't see it on commercial airliners? I don't mean every flight, you need the right combination of circumstances to be in a position to see it, but you can achieve that on a commercial flight

the ranga said it, on mythbusters

the episode where he went in a u2-plane

there are numerous videos of balloons with cameras going 120 000 feet, which is a lot higher than any commercial planes goes, regardless of the combination of circumstances - every one it looks flat and still

Right, so basically, what you're saying is, ignore the hundreds of years of study and evidence. I find it ironic that you speak of powerful institutions harassing people - the Church famously did this when observation threatened long-held religious notions about the universe.

very strange conclusion to draw

You want flat earth theory to be true, to lend meaning to your existence - I don't see why a rotating globe suddenly means God doesn't exist - it means (if you believe that sort of thing) that God put the earth together in a different manner.

lol, rubbish

And lack of faith in God doesn't mean life is viewed as a meaningless thing. If we are a chance arrangement of matter and biology and geology, then it means we are rare, and therefore special, and we should cherish every moment of our existence, instead of squabbling over which faith should be considered supreme.


extend the same invitation to you that I extended to Darthbards - a 1 on 1 debate, right here, on the validity of FE theory. You game?

Still don't know what is gained by a decades long systematic cover up of the shape of the planet..

fact: because you dont know something, doesnt mean much in the grand scheme of it all

the debate started 90 pages ago

i care not for your silly formal rules on different websites

 

[Gralin]

the ranga said it, on mythbusters

the episode where he went in a u2-plane

there are numerous videos of balloons with cameras going 120 000 feet, which is a lot higher than any commercial planes goes, regardless of the combination of circumstances - every one it looks flat and still

No what Adam said was he was at 70,000ft and at that height the curvature of the earth was more pronounced than he had every seen it before, not that it couldn't be seen from lower

speaking of here is a photo from an unmanned balloon taken at 77,000 ft

 

[cannot]

sun looks close

 

[cannot]

 

[cannot]

 

[Gralin]

sun looks close

does it? How can you tell?

 

[cannot]

does it? How can you tell?

yeah fair point

it could well look 150 million k away

but does it?

in regard to that picture you provided, how can we be sure the camera is 'normal' as opposed to a curved/fisheye?

im not an expert on optics so happy to defer to greater knowledge

No what Adam said was he was at 70,000ft and at that height the curvature of the earth was more pronounced than he had every seen it before, not that it couldn't be seen from lower

speaking of here is a photo from an unmanned balloon taken at 77,000 ft

it was just the first thing that came to my head, ive heard "you cannot see the curve of the earth from a commercial plane" from varous other sources also

i am curious as to why it the earth appears flat, in some videos higher than 77000 foot?

 

[darth_timon]

according to you string theory is pseudo science








the ranga said it, on mythbusters

the episode where he went in a u2-plane

there are numerous videos of balloons with cameras going 120 000 feet, which is a lot higher than any commercial planes goes, regardless of the combination of circumstances - every one it looks flat and still



very strange conclusion to draw



lol, rubbish





fact: because you dont know something, doesnt mean much in the grand scheme of it all

the debate started 90 pages ago

i care not for your silly formal rules on different websites

Cannot, the Church's hindrance of science is well-known: Galileo was put on trial for daring to challenge religious ideas.

I will note that you're unwilling to have a debate based on rules. If you change your mind, it can take place right here on Big Footy too.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[cannot]

Cannot, the Church's hindrance of science is well-known: Galileo was put on trial for daring to challenge religious ideas.

I will note that you're unwilling to have a debate based on rules. If you change your mind, it can take place right here on Big Footy too.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

whats less well know is the churchs manipulation and backing of science over the course of centuries

such as the society of jesus big bang theory, the vaticans fondness of aliens, and the ownership of earths largest telescope which happens to be named LUCIFER

https://www.reddit.com/r/RomeRules/ is a good resource, not specifically fe related however

 

[darth_timon]

whats less well know is the churchs manipulation and backing of science over the course of centuries

such as the society of jesus big bang theory, the vaticans fondness of aliens, and the ownership of earths largest telescope which happens to be named LUCIFER

https://www.reddit.com/r/RomeRules/ is a good resource, not specifically fe related however

I trust you appreciate the irony of Church-based organisations not using pseudo-science the way FE nonsense does.

And the largest reflecting telescope on earth is this: Gran Telescopio Canarias

So quite where the name Lucifier comes into it... But what's in a name eh?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[cannot]

And the largest reflecting telescope on earth is this: Gran Telescopio Canarias

apologies, not largest, one of the oldest observatories

I trust you appreciate the irony of Church-based organisations not using pseudo-science the way FE nonsense does.

the historical mix between science and the church is long and complex

its not as simple as the church is anti science as many believe

So quite where the name Lucifier comes into it... But what's in a name eh?

According to an article in Popular Science by Rebecca Boyle the “new instrument with an evil-sounding name is helping scientists see how stars are born.”


“Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research,

build on an ancient Indian burial ground too ...

 

[Reppie]

Taken in real time, from Space station, also his go-pro cam (not a fish eye lens before you play that card)

2 minutes 15 seconds first video it's flat.
Thanks.

 

[cannot]

2 minutes 15 seconds first video it's flat.
Thanks.

 

[Reppie]

Magically no curvature.
Pure Hollywood production.

 

[Heisenberg_]

2 minutes 15 seconds first video it's flat.
Thanks.

Magically no curvature.
Pure Hollywood production.

Explain the clear curv you see from the vision outside the pod rather then the small part you can see through the small window?

You're off your head.

 

[Reppie]

Explain the clear curv you see from the vision outside the pod rather then the small part you can see through the small window?

You're off your head.

Fish eye lens.
Do some research at least.
The image is from a different camera inside the pod.

 

[Gralin]

Explain the clear curv you see from the vision outside the pod rather then the small part you can see through the small window?

You're off your head.

That's where that 60 degree viewing angle at 35000 feet comes in, if you can't see a wide enough view you can't see the curve.

Why people argue that point which is basic math is beyond me

 

[Heisenberg_]

Fish eye lens.
Do some research at least.
The image is from a different camera inside the pod.

I don't know why I bothered even replying to you.

 

[cannot]

Explain the clear curv you see from the vision outside the pod rather then the small part you can see through the small window?

You're off your head.

I don't know why I bothered even replying to you.

 

[Heisenberg_]

That's where that 60 degree viewing angle at 35000 feet comes in, if

Watch as this basic point is brushed off by the crazy ones for some BS excuse about fish eye lens.