Flat Earth

[notbatman]

...clip...

Maybe this could help a bit - understanding of perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63bK7AnWNWw

Excellent video, funny how somebody can graduate from university and never once be taught this in all those years of school.

What's even more funny is that, in order to even understand what is being explained, because it is so different than the way the laws of science explain things about perspective, one has to become a believer in flat earth, just to understand the video.

My point is that's it's not taught in schools with the one exception being an advanced art student. Your statement that it's taught differently is incorrect but please, feel free to prove me wrong.

The same is true with the Airy's failure experiment, while they'll beat you over the head with Michelson-Morley to make Eisenstein look good not once will they ever mention Airy's Failure even though it's skinning the same cat.

[protokol]

Why don't you two come back when you can provide some proof, any proof at all that the Earth is a spinning globe. I've provided a whole lot of evidence that it's flat and undeniable proof (Airy's failure experiment) that it's motionless. Because right you guys look like total fools trying to say there's curvature in that photo while ignoring the fact there's a hot spot under the Sun.

whats bugging me is, the earth allegedly spins at a thousand mile per hour, now if this was true, knowing how my sky tv works, allegedly pointed at a satellite that has to be ultra precise or you do not not get a signal, now if the earth is spinning at 1000mph or even stationary, how the hell do these satellites keep a perfect location in the sky, so millions of people can watch tv? to me the accuracy needed for satellite  must equate to these satellites being fixed, maybe even tethered

I suspect the signals are ground based and they bounce them off the ionosphere. There are sever other possibilities I can think of but that seems the most likely.

i agree, but again it kinda proves there are zero satellites in "geostationary" orbit as they allege haha, and if there are no satellites then we must be on a flat earth lol, im not saying we are, just the evidence suggests we are, im still open to physical indisputable physical evidence for sphere or hollow earth though, 3 brilliant concepts which show off reality that we are educated into a belief system  

Umm no, just because you don't know how a satellite works it doesn't prove that they don't exist. Most geostationary satellites do in fact creep out of their orbit eventually, so they have small rocket propulsion systems to correct the orbit. I suspect that a TV satellite doesn't need to be that accurate to function anyway. The parabolic shape of the dish on your house would collect the signal even if it was off by a couple of degrees.

[notbatman]

Why don't you two come back when you can provide some proof, any proof at all that the Earth is a spinning globe. I've provided a whole lot of evidence that it's flat and undeniable proof (Airy's failure experiment) that it's motionless. Because right you guys look like total fools trying to say there's curvature in that photo while ignoring the fact there's a hot spot under the Sun.

whats bugging me is, the earth allegedly spins at a thousand mile per hour, now if this was true, knowing how my sky tv works, allegedly pointed at a satellite that has to be ultra precise or you do not not get a signal, now if the earth is spinning at 1000mph or even stationary, how the hell do these satellites keep a perfect location in the sky, so millions of people can watch tv? to me the accuracy needed for satellite  must equate to these satellites being fixed, maybe even tethered

I suspect the signals are ground based and they bounce them off the ionosphere. There are sever other possibilities I can think of but that seems the most likely.

i agree, but again it kinda proves there are zero satellites in "geostationary" orbit as they allege haha, and if there are no satellites then we must be on a flat earth lol, im not saying we are, just the evidence suggests we are, im still open to physical indisputable physical evidence for sphere or hollow earth though, 3 brilliant concepts which show off reality that we are educated into a belief system  

Umm no, just because you don't know how a satellite works it doesn't prove that they don't exist. Most geostationary satellites do in fact creep out of their orbit eventually, so they have small rocket propulsion systems to correct the orbit. I suspect that a TV satellite doesn't need to be that accurate to function anyway. The parabolic shape of the dish on your house would collect the signal even if it was off by a couple of degrees.

The fact is that differently shaped rocket nozzles produce varying degrees of thrust depending on atmospheric pressure. This is proof that rockets need something push against and that they don't work in a vacuum environment.

[protokol]

...clip...

Maybe this could help a bit - understanding of perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63bK7AnWNWw

Excellent video, funny how somebody can graduate from university and never once be taught this in all those years of school.

I had a little watch, I can see how some people might find it compelling. But it's wrong.

Specifically, he says that the horizon on a flat Earth obscures the bottom of buildings when they are far enough away. Can you see how ridiculous this concept is? How can something flat hide anything? For the bottoms to be obscured, there must be something to obscure them.

Also I don't know why he thinks the buildings on a globe Earth would be slanted or not parallel. True, they would slant very slightly away from the observer, but this wouldn't be apparent because they are slanting in the same direction as the line of sight. And they would still appear to be parallel - why would one building decide to lean left and the one next to it lean right?

However, the biggest problem for me with the Flat Earth theory is not gravity, the sun, the moon, satellites or perspective. It's the fact that there would need to be literally millions of people in on the conspiracy. Why would they conspire to keep this secret, what benefit could it have to be worth such effort and risk, and how could they keep it a secret?

You really think that not one person out of this group of millions would write a proper scientific paper and manage to get it published? Imagine the wealth and fame they would acquire if they did prove it!

[protokol]

Why don't you two come back when you can provide some proof, any proof at all that the Earth is a spinning globe. I've provided a whole lot of evidence that it's flat and undeniable proof (Airy's failure experiment) that it's motionless. Because right you guys look like total fools trying to say there's curvature in that photo while ignoring the fact there's a hot spot under the Sun.

whats bugging me is, the earth allegedly spins at a thousand mile per hour, now if this was true, knowing how my sky tv works, allegedly pointed at a satellite that has to be ultra precise or you do not not get a signal, now if the earth is spinning at 1000mph or even stationary, how the hell do these satellites keep a perfect location in the sky, so millions of people can watch tv? to me the accuracy needed for satellite  must equate to these satellites being fixed, maybe even tethered

I suspect the signals are ground based and they bounce them off the ionosphere. There are sever other possibilities I can think of but that seems the most likely.

i agree, but again it kinda proves there are zero satellites in "geostationary" orbit as they allege haha, and if there are no satellites then we must be on a flat earth lol, im not saying we are, just the evidence suggests we are, im still open to physical indisputable physical evidence for sphere or hollow earth though, 3 brilliant concepts which show off reality that we are educated into a belief system  

Umm no, just because you don't know how a satellite works it doesn't prove that they don't exist. Most geostationary satellites do in fact creep out of their orbit eventually, so they have small rocket propulsion systems to correct the orbit. I suspect that a TV satellite doesn't need to be that accurate to function anyway. The parabolic shape of the dish on your house would collect the signal even if it was off by a couple of degrees.

The fact is that differently shaped rocket nozzles produce varying degrees of thrust depending on atmospheric pressure. This is proof that rockets need something push against and that they don't work in a vacuum environment.

The first thing you said may be true, but it's certainly not proof that rockets don't work in a vacuum. Conservation of momentum will apply.

Try sitting in a chair with wheels and throwing heavy stuff out - you will move in the opposite direction. And it's not because the stuff you throw is pushing against the air. To prove this you could first throw a heavy cannonball and then a balloon, that are both the same size. If they were pushing against the air, then they would both cause your chair to move the same amount. However, the cannonball will make you move more because it has more mass. Try it!

[BADecker]

...clip...

Maybe this could help a bit - understanding of perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63bK7AnWNWw

Excellent video, funny how somebody can graduate from university and never once be taught this in all those years of school.

What's even more funny is that, in order to even understand what is being explained, because it is so different than the way the laws of science explain things about perspective, one has to become a believer in flat earth, just to understand the video.

My point is that's it's not taught in schools with the one exception being an advanced art student. Your statement that it's taught differently is incorrect but please, feel free to prove me wrong.

The same is true with the Airy's failure experiment, while they'll beat you over the head with Michelson-Morley to make Eisenstein look good not once will they ever mention Airy's Failure even though it's skinning the same cat.

You are probably correct when you say that art class is where it is taught (I am speaking about the perspective idea in the video). Since it is so abstract that you have to become a believer just to understand it, there is no reason for anyone other than an art student to beautify the world with it. Understanding it as a science would turn the person who understood it into a blubbering idiot regarding science, because he has to believe it before he can understand it.

----------

Airy's Failure is a fun riddle. The reason it is not taught is that it doesn't have anything to do with science these days. Scientific understanding has gone way beyond it.

Nobody is prohibited from looking all kinds of history up regarding astronomy and alchemy. If that is what they want to do, the schools don't prohibit them.

Take the Wright brothers for example. If a person wants to learn to be a pilot, and especially if he wants to learn some flight engineering, he will be taught about the Wright brothers to some extent. The Wrights had a reasonable understanding of aerodynamics. And it is good to know their history, and even a bit of the history of their aerodynamics experience.

The thing that aviation schools are not going to teach about the Wright brothers, is all the sales applications that they used for selling the bicycles that they made. It doesn't apply. People can look it up if it is available to look up. But it doesn't apply to aviation these days.

Airy's Failure might be a riddle. But science has moved beyond it in other ways. It doesn't apply. People can stump themselves with the riddle if they want. Nobody is going to stop them. And that is why we have the flat-earth people. They are unwilling to get up and move on.

Okay.

[exemplaar]

...clip...

Maybe this could help a bit - understanding of perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63bK7AnWNWw

Excellent video, funny how somebody can graduate from university and never once be taught this in all those years of school.

I had a little watch, I can see how some people might find it compelling. But it's wrong.

Specifically, he says that the horizon on a flat Earth obscures the bottom of buildings when they are far enough away. Can you see how ridiculous this concept is? How can something flat hide anything? For the bottoms to be obscured, there must be something to obscure them.

Also I don't know why he thinks the buildings on a globe Earth would be slanted or not parallel. True, they would slant very slightly away from the observer, but this wouldn't be apparent because they are slanting in the same direction as the line of sight. And they would still appear to be parallel - why would one building decide to lean left and the one next to it lean right?

However, the biggest problem for me with the Flat Earth theory is not gravity, the sun, the moon, satellites or perspective. It's the fact that there would need to be literally millions of people in on the conspiracy. Why would they conspire to keep this secret, what benefit could it have to be worth such effort and risk, and how could they keep it a secret?

You really think that not one person out of this group of millions would write a proper scientific paper and manage to get it published? Imagine the wealth and fame they would acquire if they did prove it!

Yes, millions are deceived by the prince of the air through all governmental/social/educational/scientific/technological systems all way down to an individual-you. Did you watch movie matrix? You can learn something out of it. There is plain truth hidden in movies and lies in the news.

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.

Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

[BADecker]

All you need to see that the earth is roundish are:
1. a tall ship;
2. a clear day;
3. a telescope;
4. enough distance between the telescope and the ship that you can only see half of the ship through the telescope, because the other half is below the horizon.

If you have another telescope that is exactly the same distance from the ship, but on the other side of it, there is more evidence.

When the telescope is mounted on a beach, and there is another telescope mounted on the top of the thousand-foot cliff that is right at the peach, perspective shows you clearly that the earth is basically round.

[BADecker]

Mathematics is a lie. Even counting numbers is a lie. Why? Because there are no two things in the universe that are exactly the same. Because of this we cannot rightfully say, "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc., ..." To be right we have to say, "1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, etc., ..."



EDIT: Okay, okay. You want the point? The point is that proving either flat earth and round earth is impossible with the math system we have.

[notbatman]

Mathematics is a lie. Even counting numbers is a lie. Why? Because there are no two things in the universe that are exactly the same. Because of this we cannot rightfully say, "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc., ..." To be right we have to say, "1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, etc., ..."



EDIT: Okay, okay. You want the point? The point is that proving either flat earth and round earth is impossible with the math system we have.

Numbers are perfect and math is the only science where we can be 100% sure of the results.

[notbatman]

Time to get schooled boys and girls, I've crafted the following image [under conditions of extreme agitation and lack of focus] to show why only the top portion of a ship is visible after it goes past the horizon.




Edit:

The ships scale and positioning is a bit "off" but the diagram still accurately makes the point of why only the top half is visible past the horizon. I'll redo the image with proper ship scale and post the results.

edit 2:

I intended to use the word transparent not translucent.

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

Retardation emanates from this thread.

If I get rich some day, all of you should expect to be on the first private space cruise and see the so called "flat earth" with your own very eyes.

[notbatman]

Retardation emanates from this thread.

If I get rich some day, all of you should expect to be on the first private space cruise and see the so called "flat earth" with your own very eyes.

Sorry dude but you're a gullible fool if you believe the Earth is a spinning globe.

[the joint]

Retardation emanates from this thread.

If I get rich some day, all of you should expect to be on the first private space cruise and see the so called "flat earth" with your own very eyes.

Sorry dude but you're a gullible fool if you believe the Earth is a spinning globe.

The stupid person thinks he is as smart or smarter than the smart person, and therein lies his stupidity.  Most of us here know who the gullible one is...(as a few flat earth YouTubers laugh their way to the bank).

I recall an earlier post of yours in which you claimed you cared about intellectual honesty, or something along those lines.  Or maybe it was that you were on the fence about what to believe.  Whatever it was, I guess you decided to throw that out the window.  If I was a scammer, I would love people like you -- say anything that seems plausible at face value and you're in, hook, line, and sinker.

If you think you're smart, you really should evaluate the circumstances under which you've reached your new found beliefs, and then consider the consequences they will bring you -- socially and otherwise -- if you are wrong (and you are).  If you really value intellectual honesty, you should re-evaluate your beliefs for any flaws and inconsistencies (and there are many) to ensure that you are not being deceived.  Seems to me you went from zero-to-fuck it in no time.

Edit:  Remember, we aren't the ones that think a 3,000 mile-high sun can illuminate the bottom of the cloud layer after sunset, but illuminate neither the ground nor the top of the cloud layer. 

[notbatman]

Retardation emanates from this thread.

If I get rich some day, all of you should expect to be on the first private space cruise and see the so called "flat earth" with your own very eyes.

Sorry dude but you're a gullible fool if you believe the Earth is a spinning globe.

The stupid person thinks he is as smart or smarter than the smart person, and therein lies his stupidity.  Most of us here know who the gullible one is...(as a few flat earth YouTubers laugh their way to the bank).

I recall an earlier post of yours in which you claimed you cared about intellectual honesty, or something along those lines.  Or maybe it was that you were on the fence about what to believe.  Whatever it was, I guess you decided to throw that out the window.  If I was a scammer, I would love people like you -- say anything that seems plausible at face value and you're in, hook, line, and sinker.

If you think you're smart, you really should evaluate the circumstances under which you've reached your new found beliefs, and then consider the consequences they will bring you -- socially and otherwise -- if you are wrong (and you are).  If you really value intellectual honesty, you should re-evaluate your beliefs for any flaws and inconsistencies (and there are many) to ensure that you are not being deceived.  Seems to me you went from zero-to-fuck it in no time.

Edit:  Remember, we aren't the ones that think a 3,000 mile-high sun can illuminate the bottom of the cloud layer after sunset, but illuminate neither the ground nor the top of the cloud layer. 

I provide photographic evidence of the tops of clouds with with a hot spot under the Sun to prove my point. I point out that the distance to the Sun as measured by a sextant is 3k miles. I prove that the Earth is stationary with Airy's failure experiment and the fact the Sun isn't overhead at 12 AM every ~180 days. I point out that the path of the Sun through the sky as measured by a sundial is impossible on a globe Earth. I even drew an illustration on how the bottom of clouds are illuminated by the Sun on our flat Earth at sunset.

You on the other hand pull a statement out of you ass with no pictures, data or anything at all to analyze. Perhaps you should go "zero-to-fuck" yourself until you can back up what you're saying with something other than unsubstantiated comments.

[BADecker]

Time to get schooled boys and girls, I've crafted the following image to show why only the top portion of a ship is visible after it goes past the horizon.




Edit:

The ships scale and positioning is a bit "off" but the diagram still accurately makes the point of why only the top half is visible past the horizon. I'll redo the image with proper ship scale and post the results.

Wow! You'd have to be bigger than the Colossus of Rhodes to get this view.    

EDIT: Besides, the reason nonbatman is right is, you can't see anything clearly through something that is translucent (see the graphic).

 

[notbatman]

Oh, good point bad. I really need to re-do that graphic, transparent was word I was looking for. I was in a state of extreme agitation and couldn't focus while drawing that up for some reason. I'll try again and put some more effort into details, notation and accuracy.

[michnelli6]

LOL i think earth is still unshaped and we are giving a shape to it , by our good activities like deforestation and such

[BADecker]

Now You Can See Five Planets At Once With The Naked Eye

Starting tomorrow morning [1/20/16], all five* visible planets will shine down from the sky in the morning twilight. Head out about an hour before sunrise, and look toward the southeast.

The four bright ones—Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, and Venus—are pretty easy to spot, if you've got a star chart in hand. Venus, for example, will be the brightest thing up there (apart from the moon). Mercury is a little trickier, because it's easily lost in the light of the soon-to-rise sun.

The planets should be visible from just about anywhere on the globe (though not from the North Pole), and the view will last until mid-February, if tomorrow's too cold for you. And if you're a night owl rather than an early bird, you're in luck: The five planets will all be aligned in the evening sky come August 2016.

What makes all five visible at once? It happens because of the planets' positions along their orbits. At the moment, these five all happen to lie to the right of the sun, when viewed from above the solar system. That means, as the earth spins, they're all visible in the sky just before sunrise. You can think if it as a line of six, with Jupiter the first to rise and the sun rising last—and marking the end of the morning stargazing session.

Read more at http://www.popsci.com/gathering-at-dawn-all-planets-are-visible-at-once.

[the joint]

Retardation emanates from this thread.

If I get rich some day, all of you should expect to be on the first private space cruise and see the so called "flat earth" with your own very eyes.

Sorry dude but you're a gullible fool if you believe the Earth is a spinning globe.

The stupid person thinks he is as smart or smarter than the smart person, and therein lies his stupidity.  Most of us here know who the gullible one is...(as a few flat earth YouTubers laugh their way to the bank).

I recall an earlier post of yours in which you claimed you cared about intellectual honesty, or something along those lines.  Or maybe it was that you were on the fence about what to believe.  Whatever it was, I guess you decided to throw that out the window.  If I was a scammer, I would love people like you -- say anything that seems plausible at face value and you're in, hook, line, and sinker.

If you think you're smart, you really should evaluate the circumstances under which you've reached your new found beliefs, and then consider the consequences they will bring you -- socially and otherwise -- if you are wrong (and you are).  If you really value intellectual honesty, you should re-evaluate your beliefs for any flaws and inconsistencies (and there are many) to ensure that you are not being deceived.  Seems to me you went from zero-to-fuck it in no time.

Edit:  Remember, we aren't the ones that think a 3,000 mile-high sun can illuminate the bottom of the cloud layer after sunset, but illuminate neither the ground nor the top of the cloud layer. 

I provide photographic evidence of the tops of clouds with with a hot spot under the Sun to prove my point. I point out that the distance to the Sun as measured by a sextant is 3k miles. I prove that the Earth is stationary with Airy's failure experiment and the fact the Sun isn't overhead at 12 AM every ~180 days. I point out that the path of the Sun through the sky as measured by a sundial is impossible on a globe Earth. I even drew an illustration on how the bottom of clouds are illuminated by the Sun on our flat Earth at sunset.

You on the other hand pull a statement out of you ass with no pictures, data or anything at all to analyze. Perhaps you should go "zero-to-fuck" yourself until you can back up what you're saying with something other than unsubstantiated comments.

You provided your misunderstandings, and do yourself the disservice of discrediting or ignoring everything that doesn't fit your beliefs as if they are trivial.  For example, your picture shows a single beam of light illuminating the bottom of the clouds, and ignores the fact that the sun in the picture would also be illuminating the top of the clouds as well as the ground.  Just because you drew it doesn't mean that's what actually happens.  And you KNOW what happens after sunset (unless you're an invelid or something and haven't been outside in years...or if you're blind).

On the other hand your misunderstandings *are* trivial with respect to maintaining a belief in a spherical earth.  You have an extreme case of confirmation bias, and are willing to perform the mental gymnastics required to maintain your beliefs at all cost.  That's the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty.  Accept photos that fit your belief only and reject all others, accept all experiments that (you think) support your beliefs and reject all that don't, etc.  It's like you're actively trying to be paranoid (by wilfully trying to confirm that millions of people are all lying to you) and delusional (willfully trying to believe in things that don't correspond with reality; refer to your drawing).

But, I understand why you do this.  As I've stated before, it must be a thrilling feeling to think that you are part of some select minority and are privy to information that billions of others are not, including the smartest people on the planet who occupy the most privileged and exclusive professions.  From time to time, I like to convince myself of how smart I am, too.  Because, well...nobody likes to feel wrong or like an idiot.