Flat Earth

[notbatman]

@Astargath, see #3 and #6.




thesis


anti-thesis



http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39349326/snake-found-on-a-plane-yes-really-snake-on-a-plane

[1715362323]

1715362323

[1715362323]

1715362323

[1715362323]

1715362323

[lightlord]

Reality:



Childish fairy tale:

[Astargath]

@Astargath, see #3 and #6.

No.

[notbatman]

^^^ That image is wrong, even on a globe it's wrong. On the globe the angle is calculated (not measured) from its center, not from the viewer. What that image depicts is apparent size as an angle, that is wrong, that is not angular size or diameter.

[Astargath]

^^^ That image is wrong, even on a globe it's wrong. On the globe the angle is calculated (not measured) from its center, not from the viewer.

Which center and which angle, you can calculate the angle from wherever you want.



This is the formula. I don't really know what you are saying tbh. You can calculate it from wherever you want. You can even estimate this using your own hand. What's your point here really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ircLt-qvl3M

[notbatman]

The Earth is flat and motionless, this is how angular size measurement works:








@lightlord, more like this:



"outer space" isn't a real place, there's a mirrored dome above us.

[Vod]

The Earth is flat and motionless, this is how angular size measurement works:

"outer space" isn't a real place, there's a mirrored dome above us.

So everyone is posting facts you cannot refute, math that has served us for a thousand years, undoctored photographs, and all you can say is REEEEEEEEE?




 

[Astargath]

The Earth is flat and motionless, this is how angular size measurement works:








@lightlord, more like this:



"outer space" isn't a real place, there's a mirrored dome above us.

No it isn't, why would you need to measure from the vanishing point? What's the point of that and why would you think a vanishing point doesn't exist on a globe?

[BADecker]

The Earth is flat and motionless, this is how angular size measurement works:

No it isn't, why would you need to measure from the vanishing point? What's the point of that and why would you think a vanishing point doesn't exist on a globe?

There isn't really any vanishing point. The thing that determines the so-called vanishing point is the viewing device. When the distance is so great, that the device being looked through, views a distant object as a single point, that is the vanishing point. When a more powerful viewing device is used - such as a more powerful telescope - the vanishing point is extended to the limits that this new device can "see," which are beyone the limits of the less powerful viewing device.

The term vanishing-point is something that is used when you have limited distance viewing. Confusion is created when notbatman tries to use simple terms like vanishing point, to describe things that are not so simple. If we didn't have a telescope, and a stronger telescope, we might have a difficult time with terms like vanishing point. But all you need, to see that the vanishing point isn't a set thing, is a reasonable pair of binoculars.

[lightlord]

If the sun/moon are just projections on a dome around the earth. Then what about the distant galaxies powerful telescopes take picture of?

[Astargath]

If the sun/moon are just projections on a dome around the earth. Then what about the distant galaxies powerful telescopes take picture of?

Uh Oh, you don't want to get into that man, last time I asked something like that we went down a big hole. I think he also believes those are projections, the other stars aren't really stars because if you look at them through a shitty camera you only see a blur. That was literally his argument btw.

[Vod]

The term vanishing-point is something that is used when you have limited distance viewing. Confusion is created when notbatman tries to use simple terms like vanishing point, to describe things that are not so simple.

What a hypocrite.  

Your entire belief in fairy tales is using the simple term "proof" to describe things that cannot be proven.  Just like notaman.

 

[Astargath]

The term vanishing-point is something that is used when you have limited distance viewing. Confusion is created when notbatman tries to use simple terms like vanishing point, to describe things that are not so simple.

What a hypocrite.  

Your entire belief in fairy tales is using the simple term "proof" to describe things that cannot be proven.  Just like notaman.

 

I mean, how insane is your theory that even Badecker thinks you are a moron? Think about it Notbatman..

[SaltySpitoon]

I had an interesting conversation with someone who doesn't believe in flat earth (sort of obvious in my field) but they were very curious about trying to prove the earth was flat. They came to a similar conclusion that I did a while ago. If you want to prove the earth is flat, there are a few conditions that need to be met, but I've yet to see anyone do.

The most important is that you need a uniform set of laws that always hold true. Its not enough to say, hey because of this, the earth is flat, if that assertion breaks 50 other laws of physics that you aren't questioning. If you are questioning those other 50 laws, you have to come to some new theories and equations that makes everything continue working while you are exploring new possibilities. Until you get everything working again under all circumstances, there is no point in proving the earth is flat if your car won't turn on because electrostatics no longer apply. Everything else needs to continue working as it actually does under your theory.

If someone comes up with proof that the earth is flat, that doesn't violate any laws of nature, please let me know.

[Vod]

I had an interesting conversation with someone who doesn't believe in flat earth (sort of obvious in my field) but they were very curious about trying to prove the earth was flat. They came to a similar conclusion that I did a while ago. If you want to prove the earth is flat, there are a few conditions that need to be met, but I've yet to see anyone do.

The most important is that you need a uniform set of laws that always hold true. Its not enough to say, hey because of this, the earth is flat, if that assertion breaks 50 other laws of physics that you aren't questioning. If you are questioning those other 50 laws, you have to come to some new theories and equations that makes everything continue working while you are exploring new possibilities. Until you get everything working again under all circumstances, there is no point in proving the earth is flat if your car won't turn on because electrostatics no longer apply. Everything else needs to continue working as it actually does under your theory.

If someone comes up with proof that the earth is flat, that doesn't violate any laws of nature, please let me know.

Very respectable post, SaltySpitoon.  Thank you, but your efforts are wasted.  

The OP is a liar and disruptive (maybe being paid?), and he does not consider your arguments.

Very soon he will "REEEEEE!" and post an easily debunked picture promoting his lie.   You can't challenge him on it, as he will quickly move to something else.

This thread needs to be locked, for it is nothing more than bullshit trolling. 

[SaltySpitoon]

Very respectable post, SaltySpitoon.  Thank you, but your efforts are wasted.  

The OP is a liar and disruptive (maybe being paid?), and he does not consider your arguments.

Very soon he will "REEEEEE!" and post an easily debunked picture promoting his lie.   You can't challenge him on it, as he will quickly move to something else.

This thread needs to be locked, for it is nothing more than bullshit trolling. 

There aren't any efforts. The point is just that the burden of proof is being done wrong here. Its not for people who believe the earth is round to disprove that the earth is flat. On the contrary, people who want to disprove that the earth is round need to prove that the earth is flat. And to do that, they need to not violate any other laws of physics unless they have proof as to why they can, and a uniform set of theories that support their claims. If you want to say that the earth is flat, gravity is elves, and the moon doesn't exist, because of electricity, you need to one, make sure that electricity still works under the assumption that the earth is flat, gravity is elves, and the moon doesn't exist. And two, that everything else still works as it should under your new unified theory. If your claim causes cars to stop working theoretically, you need to go back to the drawing board.

If people want to do personal attacks, or disregard facts, who cares. Don't argue with them. Argue over sound theories that they can give. Why bother arguing over whether the sky is blue with a color blind person, if there is another guy posting in the thread that makes a claim that can actually be discussed rationally. I don't think the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that there are certain scenarios where the earth being flat would work, and under those circumstances something cool might happen. Don't waste your time with someone claiming that by measuring the horizon with their chainsaw, they can see the edge of the earth.

There are people out there with valid claims about the earth being flat. Tune out the noise and have a neat conversation with someone who can approach a problem in a completely different manner than yourself.

[joerogers8]

Very respectable post, SaltySpitoon.  Thank you, but your efforts are wasted.  

The OP is a liar and disruptive (maybe being paid?), and he does not consider your arguments.

Very soon he will "REEEEEE!" and post an easily debunked picture promoting his lie.   You can't challenge him on it, as he will quickly move to something else.

This thread needs to be locked, for it is nothing more than bullshit trolling. 

There aren't any efforts. The point is just that the burden of proof is being done wrong here. Its not for people who believe the earth is round to disprove that the earth is flat. On the contrary, people who want to disprove that the earth is round need to prove that the earth is flat. And to do that, they need to not violate any other laws of physics unless they have proof as to why they can, and a uniform set of theories that support their claims. If you want to say that the earth is flat, gravity is elves, and the moon doesn't exist, because of electricity, you need to one, make sure that electricity still works under the assumption that the earth is flat, gravity is elves, and the moon doesn't exist. And two, that everything else still works as it should under your new unified theory. If your claim causes cars to stop working theoretically, you need to go back to the drawing board.

If people want to do personal attacks, or disregard facts, who cares. Don't argue with them. Argue over sound theories that they can give. Why bother arguing over whether the sky is blue with a color blind person, if there is another guy posting in the thread that makes a claim that can actually be discussed rationally. I don't think the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that there are certain scenarios where the earth being flat would work, and under those circumstances something cool might happen. Don't waste your time with someone claiming that by measuring the horizon with their chainsaw, they can see the edge of the earth.

There are people out there with valid claims about the earth being flat. Tune out the noise and have a neat conversation with someone who can approach a problem in a completely different manner than yourself.

What about those who say we are not on a sphere as told by mainstream science.  Can you prove the earth is a sphere without violating any laws of physics?  Mainly the physics of water.

[presduterte]

What about those who say we are not on a sphere as told by mainstream science.  Can you prove the earth is a sphere without violating any laws of physics? 

You seem to have completely missed the point of the person you are responding to. Its not on Round Earthers to prove to you the earth is round. Its on you to prove to them that the earth is flat.

Mainly the physics of water.

Do you believe in gravity, or is that just illuminati-driven mumbo jumbo?

A belief system based on ignorance and willful misunderstanding is no belief system at all.

[joerogers8]

What about those who say we are not on a sphere as told by mainstream science.  Can you prove the earth is a sphere without violating any laws of physics?  

You seem to have completely missed the point of the person you are responding to. Its not on Round Earthers to prove to you the earth is round. Its on you to prove to them that the earth is flat.

Mainly the physics of water.

Do you believe in gravity, or is that just illuminati-driven mumbo jumbo?

A belief system based on ignorance and willful misunderstanding is no belief system at all.

You seem to be misunderstanding.  The claim was made we are on a sphere.  It's up to the "round earther", as you call them,  to prove that claim in a way which does not violate physics.  

I should not have to "believe" anything if we are talking the scientific method.  The claims should be repeatable, demonstrable and measurable.  

I cannot bend water, make it conform to the exterior of a shape or have a vacuum next to a pressurized system not equalize.  I cannot replicate any of these through experimentation.

[presduterte]

You seem to be misunderstanding.  The claim was made we are on a sphere.  It's up to the "round earther", as you call them,  to prove that claim in a way which does not violate physics.  

Its really not. The topic is titled "Flat Earth."

I should not have to "believe" anything if we are talking the scientific method.  The claims should be repeatable, demonstrable and measurable.  

What are you even talking about?

I cannot bend water, make it conform to the exterior of a shape or have a vacuum next to a pressurized system not equalize.  I cannot replicate any of these through experimentation.

Nobody asked you to. This doesn't mean water defies the law of gravity. So do you not believe in gravity?