Flat Earth Believers, I would like to hear your ideas.

a reply to: Vasteel

The other explanation which is "density" still requires gravity to function which as you say would be a largely diagonal force for most people.

How does gravity make hot air, being less dense than cold air, go up?

How does gravity make a ball filled with air, held under water and being less dense than water, float up?

I am talking about gravity the force that comes from the center of the Earth, pulling matter straight down towards that center.


I agree, the explanation of buoyancy and density still requires a law dictating that less dense matter goes up, and denser matter down, but it sure doesn't need gravity, nor is gravity a good explanation for what we see.

Gravity is basically only needed to keep ballers from falling of their ball Earth.

a reply to: FlatBastard


Air pressure differential


Gravity does not "make things go up"
Gravity is a weak force, its only the enormous mass of the earth that has a cumulative effect

originally posted by: FlatBastard
a reply to: Vasteel

the sun would not set but get smaller and further away.

But the sun does not set, it does get smaller, and it does go further away, it seems to set because it is moving away from you towards the perspective horizon and it is cut off once it passes that horizon. It can all be explained by perspective and there is loads of time lapse footage on YT showing this.

In places where the atmosphere is humid the change in size is not as dramatic because the atmosphere works as a lens, however in places where the atmosphere is dryer, you can see it shrinking in size, dramatically.

Btw, most sunset pics and footage are zoomed in giving a false perception of the size in the sky.

How does the sun, moving away form me, perpendicular to me, at my sunset, allow it to rise up or be directly overhead and not perceptibly moving in other locations and timezones on a flat earth model ?

And how would it return to starting position A for the next days sunrise in that location without making the entire journey in reverse, while maintaining sunset in location b?

a reply to: MasterAtArms

Air pressure differential

Can you elaborate?

Gravity does not "make things go up"

I know, that was the point I was making in response to the comment claiming that the "density" explanation needs gravity to function.

originally posted by: FlatBastard
How does gravity make a ball filled with air, held under water and being less dense than water, float up?

I am talking about gravity the force that comes from the center of the Earth, pulling matter straight down towards that center.

Far as I know it's that the water and ball are both falling towards the center of the earth due to gravity, but the water being denser basically pushes the air-filled ball out of the way on its way "down" which displaces the ball in the opposite direction. This is what I meant about gravity being required for density to work as with no gravity, density shouldn't matter (I *think*, I am not a physicist).

Also, gravity isn't a force which "comes from" the center of the Earth, more like the result of the Earths mass warping space-time as far as I understand it. This was "Einstein" stuff replacing "Newton" stuff, that's science though - continually experiment and observe, then throw out old theories as they get replaced with better ones.

originally posted by: FlatBastard
I agree, the explanation of buoyancy and density still requires a law dictating that less dense matter goes up, and denser matter down, but it sure doesn't need gravity, nor is gravity a good explanation for what we see.

Gravity is basically only needed to keep ballers from falling of their ball Earth.

Gravity (with bouyancy) does explain "that less dense matter goes up, and denser matter down" though. It also explains the movments of the stars and planets. There were problems when it came to the movements of galaxies however which is how dark matter got dreamt up. I never liked DM as it seemed like making stuff up to get the theories to fit the data. Apparantly there is evidence for DM now, maybe not.

originally posted by: FlatBastard
But the sun does not set, it does get smaller, and it does go further away, it seems to set because it is moving away from you towards the perspective horizon and it is cut off once it passes that horizon. It can all be explained by perspective and there is loads of time lapse footage on YT showing this.

We are just going to have to disagree here. To my own eyes the sun does go below the horizon in a way that perspective would not account for, but is entirely consistent with me standing on a spinning globe looking at a distant but massive sun.

How far away would this "perspective horizon" be? And would I be correct in saying that it would be the absolute limit on visual distance? So if the FE stars (whatever they are) were further away than the (apparantly) setting sun you should not be able to see them?

The other things are, as I have said, why do the southern hemisphere stars not appear to spin around polaris according to FE but instead spin the opposite way around a fixed point which should not exist in FE but is consistent with globe? and how does Australia have longer summer days than nights given that a "rimward" small sun should never be able to produce this effect?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Why are you still here? I thought you have already decided that most of us here are retards.

On the topic though, the map itself is just a concept so I'm not presenting it as serious evidence, but rather as an idea to broaden the subject. Also, the distance from Perth to Sydney doesn't change at all, it's the same map as any other, just projected differently. I wonder, how arrogant do you have to be to find something that isn't there just to prove your point!? (a rhetorical question)

a reply to: 13ssA

points - in no particular order :

1 - i dont think that most people are retards - just the charlatans pushing the flat earth delusion

2 - that map is claimed as an accurate representation by flat earth cultists - so its failure to get a key distance correct is pertinant

3 - thanks for disowning the map - but heres a hint - try some serious evidence - surely the flat earth cult has some [ rhetorical question ]

a reply to: MasterAtArms

gravity works just as predicted and therefore on a flat earth would still be largely diagonal in any particular location.

You don't know that. Gravity hasn't been tested on a flat plane as large as, lets say, the moon. Just because it works as predicted doesn't mean we know how it works, because we don't. Bear in mind that I haven't invented anything yet, just trying to bypass a theory that can't work on a flat plane with a plausible solution. There is nothing complex about it - it just works in a different way and at the same time has almost an identical effect.

P.S. You don't have to repeat all your cliché statements just to feel "superior". It's pathetic.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You like videos?


m.youtube.com...

My observations, always show the result, can i get a repeat?!

The equidistant projection is used for pin pointing exact locations for radio purposes, it is also knon for having most accurate continent proportions, i don't know about Antarctica, but that's what that projection is used for, other projections have different purposes all different.

a reply to: Vasteel

Far as I know it's that the water and ball are both falling towards the center of the earth due to gravity, but the water being denser basically pushes the air-filled ball out of the way on its way "down" which displaces the ball in the opposite direction. This is what I meant about gravity being required for density to work as with no gravity, density shouldn't matter (I *think*, I am not a physicist).

Teh water is falling?

Through what medium? No offense to you personally, but this sounds like a huge pile of steaming ball Earth BS.

Gravity (with bouyancy) does explain "that less dense matter goes up, and denser matter down" though. It also explains the movments of the stars and planets. There were problems when it came to the movements of galaxies however which is how dark matter got dreamt up. I never liked DM as it seemed like making stuff up to get the theories to fit the data. Apparantly there is evidence for DM now, maybe not.

I don't care about teh ball earth space universe right now, so how do you explain how gravity, the force pulling matter down, explains why things go up? Maybe there is a good explanation but I just don't see it.

We are just going to have to disagree here. To my own eyes the sun does go below the horizon in a way that perspective would not account for, but is entirely consistent with me standing on a spinning globe looking at a distant but massive sun.

I will get back to you on this.

How far away would this "perspective horizon" be?

I am not sure, but from what I can gather, from human eye level, looking at the sea, somewhere between 5 and 10 miles.

And would I be correct in saying that it would be the absolute limit on visual distance?

With regards to the surface, yes. Not for things above it, at the right height. The perspective horizon cuts of the view of the flat plane beyond it. Why?

Because the surface angles up in our view of 3d reality, and lines converge at eye level, at our perspective horizon.

Go stand at sea level. Take of your shoes. Go stand at the water line and take a deep breath and look at the horizon. The water is at your eye level at the horizon. At your position, the water is at feet level. See how the surface angles up in our vision, till it meets the sky and forms the horizon. Things are cut off beyond that point, and in theory, those converging lines start to diverge, so your line of sight actually goes over the flat plane beyond it at an upward angle.

I could post a nice illustration but do I really need to show people what their vision of reality looks like.

The other things are, as I have said, why do the southern hemisphere stars not appear to spin around polaris according to FE but instead spin the opposite way around a fixed point which should not exist in FE but is consistent with globe? and how does Australia have longer summer days than nights given that a "rimward" small sun should never be able to produce this effect?

I really don't know I would have to look into it.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I don't care what this map is claimed to be. I said that I, as in - me, do not present it as a scientific fact and all you do is just point fingers at things that are not a part of the conversation. That just proves that your only point here is to argue pointlessly. Truly an ape.

a reply to: 13ssA

sigh - i get it - you condem another flat eart cult map as a " fantasy "

so again i ask - what is the " real " flat earth map ?

the accurate representation of the spheroid model = the globe

so what the accurate flat earth model ?

originally posted by: 13ssA
a reply to: MasterAtArms

gravity works just as predicted and therefore on a flat earth would still be largely diagonal in any particular location.

You don't know that. Gravity hasn't been tested on a flat plane as large as, lets say, the moon. Just because it works as predicted doesn't mean we know how it works, because we don't. Bear in mind that I haven't invented anything yet, just trying to bypass a theory that can't work on a flat plane with a plausible solution. There is nothing complex about it - it just works in a different way and at the same time has almost an identical effect.

P.S. You don't have to repeat all your cliché statements just to feel "superior". It's pathetic.

Its not hard, as a reasonable and logical person who can comprehend some of the most simple things about the world around me to feel superior to someone who has to invent incredibly complex and frankly hilarious systems to support a flat earth argument. And don't forget, you threw the first insult here, as FE supporters so often do when they feel backed into a corner.

Are you now claiming the moon is flat as well?

Anyway, so you acknowledge that gravity works as predicted. So, if the earth is flat, why are we not experiencing diagonal gravity ? And what do you mean gravity hasn't been tested on a flat plane as large as the moon? are you claiming that the moon is larger than the earth?

If the moon is smaller than the earth, gravity would work the same, albeit at a different level. If you think it would not then you are saying it must be bigger, right? because it hasn't been "tested on a flat plane as large as the moon"

flat earthers : explain this image :

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
flat earthers : explain this image :

I'm not an FE'r, but they look like part built AT-ATs lol

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Seems like an inferior mirage, the bottom part. Why, what is your evil plan?

How does the sun, moving away form me, perpendicular to me, at my sunset, allow it to rise up or be directly overhead and not perceptibly moving in other locations and timezones on a flat earth model ?

a reply to: 13ssA



Still avoided with no answer offered yet either

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I never said it's a fantasy nor I condemn it. What is wrong with you? It's like you have this pathological urge to find stuff that isn't there or force feed your twisted point of view. That's amazingly disturbing.

I don't know what is the "real" FE model because the whole world has been indoctrinated into the round earth model so obviously only concepts have been left and the rest, assuming flat earth is real, the rest would be hidden. It's not something you can just magically conjure out of nothing.

Hahaha no answer, as to how people can observe objects beyond the calculated curvature, why side track? Go outside and repeat the video and make your own calculations if you have to, no curvature is observed repeatedly. Only the illusion of one due to the natural laws of perspective, artists use it to duplicate what the eye is seeing. All ancient calculations are based on pure eye sight alone and limited observations, which can be proven to be wrong in the most of simple ways, thus all calculations that depend on those false observations are irrelevant.

a reply to: 13ssA

yes you have condemed it as a fantasy - as you agree that it does not accuratly depict the distance from perth to sydney

npw i shall repaeat myself - the flat earth cult dogma - states that this is an accurate depiction

but - lets cut to the chase - what yo you think the alleged " flat earth " looks like ?