Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[Nothing]

Now when a flat eather says there is an ice wall....a baller will tell you their is a molten iron core which creates magnetism.

There has been no observed icewall but magnetism has been observed, including from molten iron.

If a flat earther tells you there is a dome...a baller will tell you gas pressure next to a vacuum of expanding space.

Once again, no dome has been observed but there has been exploration to LEO at least (unless you're a nutjob who thinks everything is fake).

If a flat earther says you I can see a building from 50km away.........a baller will tell you that building is being lifted and loomed around the curve and what you're seeing is hologram.

Once again refraction of light is an observable event and can be replicated consistently. Given that knowledge, it would be remiss to not include it in a model.

 

[NEGAN]

There has been no observed icewall but magnetism has been observed, including from molten iron.


Once again, no dome has been observed but there has been exploration to LEO at least (unless you're a nutjob who thinks everything is fake).


Once again refraction of light is an observable event and can be replicated consistently. Given that knowledge, it would be remiss to not include it in a model.

As I said....assumptions assumptions assumptions.

Show me gas pressure without a container please. And how space expands.

Show me a photo of the Earths molten iron core please...And I want to see it creating the magnetism above its curie point.


Of course refraction is a thing it just so happens to loom up perfectly to the horizon lol....and nobody is denying this image below we can tell the difference.....


but at night time when you see the building what then?. So go prove it does. Because a flat eather can prove to you its flat....i want proof of the 8 inches per mile squared in a 360 field of view.

Also while your at it...

Tell me how you got earth radius, without assumption

Also tell me how the coriolis effect works on a heliocentric model please.

 

[Wallaby]

As I said....assumptions assumptions assumptions.

Show me gas pressure without a container please. And how space expands.

The ocean has pressure without a container. The only difference between liquids and gases is that in a liquid, the kinetic energy of the molecules in the liquid is low enough that the molecules can still move freely, but the total liquid will occupy a fixed volume (but not necessarily a fixed shape - liquid is fluid). In a gas, the molecules have enough to move freely such that they do not occupy a fixed volume. They can spread out - theoretically indefinitely. However, they are still bound to the earth by gravity, and most do not have enough energy to reach escape velocity to escape the pull of it.
Google the Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gases for more information.
The expansion of space has been confirmed by observation of light from distant galaxies. When combined with the astrophysical distribution of galaxies it leads to the conclusion that the universe must be in a state of continual transition. A Universe that obeys the laws of relativity and is filled, isotropically and homogeneously, with matter and/or radiation, cannot be static. It must be expanding or contracting. All evidence points to expansion.
Google Universe Expansion Acceleration and Einsteins Cosmological constant for more information.

Show me a photo of the Earths molten iron core please...And I want to see it creating the magnetism above its curie point.
Of course we have no photos of the earth's core. However, we can calculate the mass of the earth (by using the gravitational constant). The earth's crust is far too light to account for the mass of the earth if it was constant all the way down. So the earth must be denser and heavier inside. Iron is one of the most common elements in the universe, yet strangely there isn't a huge amount (relatively speaking) on the surface of the Earth. So where is it? Probably it has moved to the centre (via various gravitational effects). Seismic wave mapping has also provided information about the interior structure - for a long time it was thought the earths core was liquid, but more recent studies show a solid centre.
The magnetic field is thought to occur due to coriolis forces acting in the convection currents of the metallic elements within the outer, liquid core of the earth. This causes electrical currents between the liquid metals, which in turn produce magnetic fields. That is how magnetic fields would be created above the Curie temperature.
Agreed there is a lot of conjecture about this - we don't know for certain. However, the Earth DOES have a magnetic field - it appears to be emanate from a point about 5-6,000 kms below the surface of the earth. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation.
Google Geodynamo for more information.

Of course refraction is a thing it just so happens to loom up perfectly to the horizon lol....and nobody is denying this image below we can tell the difference.....


but at night time when you see the building what then?. So go prove it does. Because a flat eather can prove to you its flat....i want proof of the 8 inches per mile squared in a 360 field of view.
You do know that if you can see something at night, there must still be light rays present? Refraction can happen at night as well.
Refraction of light rays (particularly across water) is such a well-understood phenomenon that weather forecasters even predict it. 'A good day to see this phenomenon'. And by the way, if the earth was flat, you would be able to see objects 'over the horizon' ALL THE TIME - not just on the 2 or 3 special days a year.

Also while your at it...

Tell me how you got earth radius, without assumption
If you are calculating a radius, you are starting with the presupposition that you are measuring on a sphere. Radius has no mathematical meaning outside of a circle or sphere.

Also tell me how the coriolis effect works on a heliocentric model please.
The Coriolis force on a Heliocentric model works the same as it would on a flat plane model - with two major differences. In a flat plane model, the coriolis force would be in the same direction across the entire plane, while in a heliocentric model it would be different between the two hemisperes - which it is.
Also, in a flat plane model, the coriolis force would be weakest at the North Pole (which it is) and strongest at the South 'Pole' (or Ice wall) - which it isn't.

Look - a lot of this stuff is not easy. If you just look around you using your 5 senses, you can only see, hear and touch a very limited part of the world. You are a small, feeble machine trying to measure and understand an object millions of times larger than you. And don't get me started on space (look, you may think it's along way to the chemist.....)
That's why people have to learn from experts (usually by going to universities and such-like ) to get a handle on this. Of course, most of it is pretty basic, and was known to scientists (or whatever they called themselves) hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Because they thought big and investigated.


Well, that was fun - haven't done one of those for a few years. Not quite PhD level, but OK.

 

[NEGAN]

As I said....assumptions assumptions assumptions.

Show me gas pressure without a container please. And how space expands.

The ocean has pressure without a container. The only difference between liquids and gases is that in a liquid, the kinetic energy of the molecules in the liquid is low enough that the molecules can still move freely, but the total liquid will occupy a fixed volume (but not necessarily a fixed shape - liquid is fluid). In a gas, the molecules have enough to move freely such that they do not occupy a fixed volume. They can spread out - theoretically indefinitely. However, they are still bound to the earth by gravity, and most do not have enough energy to reach escape velocity to escape the pull of it.
Google the Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gases for more information.
The expansion of space has been confirmed by observation of light from distant galaxies. When combined with the astrophysical distribution of galaxies it leads to the conclusion that the universe must be in a state of continual transition. A Universe that obeys the laws of relativity and is filled, isotropically and homogeneously, with matter and/or radiation, cannot be static. It must be expanding or contracting. All evidence points to expansion.
Google Universe Expansion Acceleration and Einsteins Cosmological constant for more information.

Show me a photo of the Earths molten iron core please...And I want to see it creating the magnetism above its curie point.
Of course we have no photos of the earth's core. However, we can calculate the mass of the earth (by using the gravitational constant). The earth's crust is far too light to account for the mass of the earth if it was constant all the way down. So the earth must be denser and heavier inside. Iron is one of the most common elements in the universe, yet strangely there isn't a huge amount (relatively speaking) on the surface of the Earth. So where is it? Probably it has moved to the centre (via various gravitational effects). Seismic wave mapping has also provided information about the interior structure - for a long time it was thought the earths core was liquid, but more recent studies show a solid centre.
The magnetic field is thought to occur due to coriolis forces acting in the convection currents of the metallic elements within the outer, liquid core of the earth. This causes electrical currents between the liquid metals, which in turn produce magnetic fields. That is how magnetic fields would be created above the Curie temperature.
Agreed there is a lot of conjecture about this - we don't know for certain. However, the Earth DOES have a magnetic field - it appears to be emanate from a point about 5-6,000 kms below the surface of the earth. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation.
Google Geodynamo for more information.

Of course refraction is a thing it just so happens to loom up perfectly to the horizon lol....and nobody is denying this image below we can tell the difference.....


but at night time when you see the building what then?. So go prove it does. Because a flat eather can prove to you its flat....i want proof of the 8 inches per mile squared in a 360 field of view.
You do know that if you can see something at night, there must still be light rays present? Refraction can happen at night as well.
Refraction of light rays (particularly across water) is such a well-understood phenomenon that weather forecasters even predict it. 'A good day to see this phenomenon'. And by the way, if the earth was flat, you would be able to see objects 'over the horizon' ALL THE TIME - not just on the 2 or 3 special days a year.

Also while your at it...

Tell me how you got earth radius, without assumption
If you are calculating a radius, you are starting with the presupposition that you are measuring on a sphere. Radius has no mathematical meaning outside of a circle or sphere.

Also tell me how the coriolis effect works on a heliocentric model please.
The Coriolis force on a Heliocentric model works the same as it would on a flat plane model - with two major differences. In a flat plane model, the coriolis force would be in the same direction across the entire plane, while in a heliocentric model it would be different between the two hemisperes - which it is.
Also, in a flat plane model, the coriolis force would be weakest at the North Pole (which it is) and strongest at the South 'Pole' (or Ice wall) - which it isn't.

Look - a lot of this stuff is not easy. If you just look around you using your 5 senses, you can only see, hear and touch a very limited part of the world. You are a small, feeble machine trying to measure and understand an object millions of times larger than you. And don't get me started on space (look, you may think it's along way to the chemist.....)
That's why people have to learn from experts (usually by going to universities and such-like ) to get a handle on this. Of course, most of it is pretty basic, and was known to scientists (or whatever they called themselves) hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Because they thought big and investigated.


Well, that was fun - haven't done one of those for a few years. Not quite PhD level, but OK.

At least quote me properly. So I know you replied...but you have literally given me nothing but more assumptions and utter utter nonsense.

No proof
No demonstrations.

I will respond when I get the chance

.

 

[iBeng]

I see your new favourite word is "ASSUMPTIONS!"

We have visibly seen other worlds as round. Nah, we've ASSUMED they are round because mathematically and optically they are. We assume.

We ASSUME there is a molten core in the middle of our planet. Because all the evidence and experiments humans have conducted for hundreds of years supports this fact.

We ASSUME gravity is what makes us all not float off into space. Because all evidence we have found so far points to that being the most logical conclusion.

But it sounds to me that you are just ASSUMING the world isnt round and you are ASSUMING the heliocentric model isnt possible.

At least thats what Im assuming now.

 

[NEGAN]

Also tell me how the coriolis effect works on a heliocentric model please.

The Coriolis force on a Heliocentric model works the same as it would on a flat plane model - with two major differences. In a flat plane model, the coriolis force would be in the same direction across the entire plane, while in a heliocentric model it would be different between the two hemisperes - which it is.
Also, in a flat plane model, the coriolis force would be weakest at the North Pole (which it is) and strongest at the South 'Pole' (or Ice wall) - which it isn't

I will start here...coriolis ..i will address the rest later.

I didn't ask you how to tell me how it works in flat plane model....there is no flat model. So do not presume anything about how a supposed flat model would work using heliocentric model concepts.

We have a heliocentric model I ASKED SPECIFICALLY how it works on the heliocentric model....so go tell me right now how it works.

 

[Wallaby]

Just google it. The internet is a great resource for learning. It's got pictures and everything.

 

[NEGAN]

Just google it. The internet is a great resource for learning. It's got pictures and everything.

No I am asking you to tell me how it works...you seem confident in your knowledge to quote me and rebut, I am not having a discussion with Google. so I want to know from a doyen such as yourself...How does Coriolis work in a heliocentric model please tell me.I don't know how it works so I need you to science the shit out of me to explain.

And your whole ocean is proof of gas pressure without a container...wow that's a doozy. I am going to assume you were trolling with that one.

 

[Wallaby]

Why do you want to listen to an anonymous internet source named after a marsupial, when, just by 'having a discussion with Google', you can find information from International Weather Services, National Oceanographic Institutes and Universities. Those guys are the experts, if you want to find out about how we know the earth is a sphere.

 

[NEGAN]

Why do you want to listen to an anonymous internet source named after a marsupial, when, just by 'having a discussion with Google', you can find information from International Weather Services, National Oceanographic Institutes and Universities. Those guys are the experts, if you want to find out about how we know the earth is a sphere.

So you are happy to quote me want to regurgitate (make up absolute nonsense in some cases), but have no understanding about anything you are copying and pasting.

The when challenged about your assertions you deflect defer and cant even back them up and at best play the ask somebody else card to dig yourself out ....

Its ok, in a thread about flat earth where utter nonsense gets spouted admittedly by both sides of the fence your ocean comment is up there with the best of them.

 

[exe ex machina]

 

[exe ex machina]

 

[Tuco]

What you have posted is what is called an appeal to ignorance.

It's a logical fallacy.

I could simply replace the word "sphere" on that poster with the word "disk" and it would hold exactly the same degree of merit.

None.

 

[Werewolf]

The MiG-31 (world's fastest known fighter plane) flying to over 21km altitude and the pilots say Earth is round (25 minute mark):

 

[Nothing]

The MiG-31 (world's fastest known fighter plane) flying to over 21km altitude and the pilots say Earth is round (25 minute mark):

Clearly a NASA stooge.

 

[DerpWerls]

The most obvious evidence for a Round Earth is the fact we exist in a 3 dimensional universe.

 

[exe ex machina]

The most obvious evidence for a Round Earth is the fact we exist in a 3 dimensional universe.

Everything in our earth exists in a 3D plane too. Eg, a bed is flat but exists in a 3d environment. A rock with ants running around on the top surface "flat" exists in a 3d environment. Etc.

 

[DerpWerls]

 

[The Room]

I will watch later but can you summarise for us.

 

[DerpWerls]

I will watch later but can you summarise for us.

Interesting numerical connections between the 24 hour day, our standard units of measurement and spheres.
Some of the well known geometry and mathematics wee see encoded in the dimensions of the pyramids and Giza Plateau, including seemingly obvious clues that the builders were representing the earth's (spherical) dimensions, to scale.

Even low tier dynastic Egyptians knew the Earth was a sphere.

If you are not familiar with Randall Carlson he is not a conspiracy wacko or anything, he is a geologist that says the mega floods that occurred at the end of the last ice age would have been absolutely cataclysmic. But he is a Freemason.

 

[exe ex machina]

The Moon btw lends supporting evidence to a Flat Earth Theory.

A Flat Earth is supposed to be everyone living on one side of a rock that faces "up", with a "dome" of some kind over the top to protect the earth and provide an environment for life to be nurtured. We just don't see the bottom side of the flat earth. And the flat earth is not square shaped etc, but disc shaped.

The Moon provides evidence for this, given we only ever see one side of it. The Moon is flat then too. Everything exists on the "up" side of it, which is pointing towards our earth. The other side of the moon, the dark side, is thus the bottom of that rock where nothing inhabits it. Likewise it is disc-shaped.

So in picture form it would look like this....

 

[Hawk Dork]

Just wondering if the Chinese artificial moon will be flat too ?

 

[exe ex machina]

Just wondering if the Chinese artificial moon will be flat too ?

It wont be able to leave low earth orbit.

 

[Espe]

The Moon btw lends supporting evidence to a Flat Earth Theory.

A Flat Earth is supposed to be everyone living on one side of a rock that faces "up", with a "dome" of some kind over the top to protect the earth and provide an environment for life to be nurtured. We just don't see the bottom side of the flat earth. And the flat earth is not square shaped etc, but disc shaped.

The Moon provides evidence for this, given we only ever see one side of it. The Moon is flat then too. Everything exists on the "up" side of it, which is pointing towards our earth. The other side of the moon, the dark side, is thus the bottom of that rock where nothing inhabits it. Likewise it is disc-shaped.

So in picture form it would look like this....

View attachment 577246

 

[Quivorir]

Wait. So now the moon is flat? FMD...