Flat Earth

[CoinCube]

<-- This is your proof the Earth is a ball? Have a nice day!

If you believe in flat earth you must already believe all photographic evidence is forged. You also have to reject most of science. Its all part of the global conspiracy right? We could go talk to that skydiver and ask him what he saw but if he says he saw a curvature he must be in on the scam right? Him and everyone else who has ever flown or ballooned to high altitudes.

Do you really think the entire world is acting in concert in a massive and global conspiracy just to fool you? People really have better things to do with their time.

I posted the photo simply to show you that it is possible to see for yourself with your own eyes that the world is not flat. Its would not be cheep but it is within the realm of the possible.

Unfortunately, however if you actually did fly to high altitudes it would shatter your worldview as you would see for yourself that the earth is very much not flat. Then you would have to choose between lying or denunciation by all your flat earth friends who would call you a traitor and sell out. Knowledge is not always cost free.

Right^^^. They don't have enough science behind their claims to make flat earth into a theory, let alone to prove that it is true.

What they have is a religion. It isn't a philosophy, because they don't philosophize about it. They simply have a bunch of beliefs that don't have a basis in fact or reality.

I am usually pretty hesitant to call something a religion but in this case I have to agree with you BADecker

[montaga]

...[clip]...

https://i.imgur.com/PvkobSF.jpg
The photographer is using a fish-eye lens in that photo (do I really need to point that out for you ?!)

100 points to the Candidate.

Nice try, except it's not a fish-eye lens being used in that particular Redbull photo. You can tell by the lack of curvature and warping with the perspective in the photo.

Its a well known fact and reported many times over that go-pro supplied the 5 cameras used.

Maybe its time to get the basics covered, a good starting point is my sig.

[Gleb Gamow]

With the Billions Quadzillions spen how come we dont have a photo showing the Globe earth.

But we do have plenty of photographic and video proof that the earth is a spheroid. Not to mention the gobs and gobs of maths dealing with celestial mechanics.

We have not a single photo showing a flat Earth in profile. Not a single photo of the fabled Ice Wall/Ring. No detailed information about the alleged dome covering a flat Earth. No explanation for how gravity can be uniform in a flat earth scenario (other than a flat disc rising upwards for eternity - sheer lunacy)

How do you reconcile this ?

My guess is that NASA only has 3-D CGI capabilities otherwise they would release 2-D depictions of our Flat Earth.

On a side note, rumor has it that a caveman invented a flat square but was killed by the Cro-Illuminati tribe so to advance their spinning wheel doctrine.

[BitNow]

With the Billions Quadzillions spen how come we dont have a photo showing the Globe earth.

But we do have plenty of photographic and video proof that the earth is a spheroid. Not to mention the gobs and gobs of maths dealing with celestial mechanics.

We have not a single photo showing a flat Earth in profile. Not a single photo of the fabled Ice Wall/Ring. No detailed information about the alleged dome covering a flat Earth. No explanation for how gravity can be uniform in a flat earth scenario (other than a flat disc rising upwards for eternity - sheer lunacy)

How do you reconcile this ?

Earth is Flat: full stop!

If you believe in Flat Earth you may be good in math but not with women.

Best regards.

[montaga]

With the Billions Quadzillions spen how come we dont have a photo showing the Globe earth.

....snip

My guess is that NASA only has 3-D CGI capabilities ---.

??
What all the way back to the beginning

Earth is not a wobbling, spinning out of control ball, full stop.

[SmirnoffVany]

Various botanists, hurry to challenge the fact that our planet has a pizza shape, immediately think of the force of gravity, which will not work on a flat planet. Who does not know, explained: gravity - is NASA's another myth, according to which all objects emit some kind of invisible force that attract other objects; and the larger the object, the more powerful his strength.

[BTcOptionTrade]

earth never flat

[Whtwabbit]

...[clip]...

https://i.imgur.com/PvkobSF.jpg
The photographer is using a fish-eye lens in that photo (do I really need to point that out for you ?!)

100 points to the Candidate.

Nice try, except it's not a fish-eye lens being used in that particular Redbull photo. You can tell by the lack of curvature and warping with the perspective in the photo.

"Not a fisheye" then why is the background 100% land, where is the ocean?, work it out lol read my sig

[nomad13666]

[nomad13666]

"Fisheye Felix" = Fake as Fuck
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Fisheye+Felix

[notbatman]

...[clip]...

https://i.imgur.com/gg1qFOE.jpg <-- This is your proof the Earth is a ball? Have a nice day!

The photographer is using a fish-eye lens in that photo (do I really need to point that out for you ?!)

I noticed you avoided answering my question.

Can we at least agree that the n-body problem is hard science, if we are going to find any common ground to debate this ? Lets try to work backwards from there...

Look, gravity is a farse; dense objects fall and light objects rise, it's that simple. This implies the "n-body problem" is the problem of how many færies can fit on the head of a pin.

Now that I've addressed you're question you can address mine:

   A gyroscope with the following flywheel says Earth does not rotate,
     

Code:

      Weight of brass disk alone (with shaft) :	112g 
      Brass disk diameter: 	53mm
      Brass disk thickness: 	12mm

   Q: How big or small does a gyroscope need to be i.e. flywheel diameter and material, to detect the Earth's 24 hour rotation as true or false beyond a reasonable margin of error?

[Whtwabbit]

"Not a fisheye" then why is the background 100% land, where is the ocean?, work it out lol read my sig

Because the photo was taken over land. No ocean visible from that perspective.

Can we at least agree that the n-body problem is hard science, if we are going to find any common ground to debate this ? Lets try to work backwards from there...

Look, gravity is a farse; dense objects fall and light objects rise, it's that simple. This implies the "n-body problem" is the problem of how many færies can fit on the head of a pin.

This is a ridiculous and nonsensical answer.

Now that I've addressed you're question you can address mine:
   A gyroscope with the following flywheel says Earth does not rotate,
      

Code:

      Weight of brass disk alone (with shaft) :	112g 
      Brass disk diameter: 	53mm
      Brass disk thickness: 	12mm

  Q: How big or small does a gyroscope need to be i.e. flywheel diameter and material, to detect the Earth's 24 hour rotation as true or false beyond a reasonable margin of error

That's an absolutely minuscule gyroscope.

I would recommend the following for more reading, if you don't want to build a laser array.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Beyond that, it would be impractical to build a disk-based gyro to measure the Earth's spin. It would need to be several kilometers in diameter.

To see that much curvature you would have to be 1/4 of the way to the moon, no ocean due to perspective?, yeah right

[nomad13666]

 

[notbatman]

"Not a fisheye" then why is the background 100% land, where is the ocean?, work it out lol read my sig

Because the photo was taken over land. No ocean visible from that perspective.

Can we at least agree that the n-body problem is hard science, if we are going to find any common ground to debate this ? Lets try to work backwards from there...

Look, gravity is a farse; dense objects fall and light objects rise, it's that simple. This implies the "n-body problem" is the problem of how many færies can fit on the head of a pin.

This is a ridiculous and nonsensical answer.

Now that I've addressed you're question you can address mine:
   A gyroscope with the following flywheel says Earth does not rotate,
      

Code:

      Weight of brass disk alone (with shaft) :	112g 
      Brass disk diameter: 	53mm
      Brass disk thickness: 	12mm

  Q: How big or small does a gyroscope need to be i.e. flywheel diameter and material, to detect the Earth's 24 hour rotation as true or false beyond a reasonable margin of error

That's an absolutely minuscule gyroscope.

I would recommend the following for more reading, if you don't want to build a laser array.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Beyond that, it would be impractical to build a disk-based gyro to measure the Earth's spin. It would need to be several kilometers in diameter.

So to answer my question you point to the Foucault pendulum, what a joke of a device. I specifically stated "Earth's 24 hour rotation", they (wiki) claim the Coriolis effect is the cause. The Coriolis force is a 23 hour 56 minuet cycle (a sidereal day); it's a fictitious force based on the motion of the stars above the Earth.

You've done nothing to prove my 112g flywheel can't be influenced by Earth's 24 hour rotation, your claim that it can't is insane! This gyroscope is proof the Earth is not moving unless you can show otherwise. So not only do you have to show my 112g flywheel can't be influenced by earth's rotation, you have to debunk the Airy's Failure experiment that empirically proves the Earth is stationary and the stars are in motion.

The Earth is a flat motionless plane, full stop.

[nomad13666]

[Whtwabbit]

To see that much curvature you would have to be 1/4 of the way to the moon, no ocean due to perspective?, yeah right

I'm sorry that facts don't agree with you

Are you placing the Moon at the FE distance, or the generally accepted distance of ~238,900 mi ?

I'm sorry I didn't see you mention any facts. I was referring to the 237,000 mile figure

[montaga]

I was referring to the 237,000 mile figure

Do you agree the moon is ~237,000 mi away from the Earth ?

No, it's nonsense.  It is about ~3000 mi away.

BTW have you get any idea how much power it takes to transmit data. I give you a little hint. It rises with the distance squared. A couple of flimsy solar panels from pluto or heck knows from where, yeh sure.

[SmirnoffVany]

Instead of believing in this nonsense, knowledgeable people know that the Earth goes up with constant acceleration of 9.81 m / s - that's why any abandoned objects fall down to the same acceleration. And do not worry about what will happen when the planet reaches its maximum speed - most likely, it will never happen. Checkmate your theory of relativity, Albert!

[BADecker]

I was referring to the 237,000 mile figure

Do you agree the moon is ~237,000 mi away from the Earth ?

No, it's nonsense.  It is about ~3000 mi away.

BTW have you get any idea how much power it takes to transmit data. I give you a little hint. It rises with the distance squared. A couple of flimsy solar panels from pluto or heck knows from where, yeh sure.

Tight-beam, maser (radar) radio transmits a lot further.    

[BADecker]

Instead of believing in this nonsense, knowledgeable people know that the Earth goes up with constant acceleration of 9.81 m / s - that's why any abandoned objects fall down to the same acceleration. And do not worry about what will happen when the planet reaches its maximum speed - most likely, it will never happen. Checkmate your theory of relativity, Albert!

This sounds like expanding universe theory. Didn't Albert believe in expanding universe, too? Or did he simply misunderstand it?