Flat earth theory?

a reply to: ignorant_ape


Thank you. It all makes perfect sense now.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: sapien82

a reply to: oldcarpy



be VERY carefull what you ask for :

see the flat earth floats on the slurry of squirril poo - in the cosmic bucket - thats why it does not tip up

and teh icewall keeps the oceans in - and the dome rests on the ice wall

simples

Hey ape--
You forgot to draw the turtle upon whose back the cosmic bucket in sitting.

Or should I say "turtles"?
...All the way down.

originally posted by: WIZolman49
a reply to: TomLawless

I'll break you in slowly.

I broke you in already. Sydney to Santiago flights, flat earth is impossible.

You people have wasted lots of time and words Flat Earthers can be summed up in two words.


THICK F&^%S

flat erarth - " reality " tee-vee - coming from an idiot neear you soon ?

I CBA with a new thread - so - necro the first open flat-tard thread going

yup folks - flat earth tee-vee :

source

obl;igitory synopsis - put a bunch of flat tards on tee vee - with the " goal " of finding the edge

hilarity GARUNTEED - what can possibly go wrong ???????

a reply to: ignorant_ape

ugh... they're breeding

a reply to: Somethingsamiss

With all the evidence to the earth not being flat. What evidence do they have the the earth is flat?

I don't know what evidence there is for a spherical earth.
All I have seen is that there is a thing called spherical geometry and there has been devised a way to convert what is observed on a plane, onto a sphere, and then people saying that what was in existence before being transposed to spherical coordinates cannot exist except if it is viewed as being on a sphere.
There might be some validity to that argument, that once you see everything in spherical terms, it might be hard to re-visualize the same thing back onto a plane.
But the reality is that the same thing can be explained in planar terms as it can be spherically, things that are actually observed on earth.
I think the problem is that so-called scientists have gotten away from putting things to practical use and go into dreaming up theoretical ideas that have nothing to do with what has been observed physically.
Anyway, the burden of proof lies on those proposing a spherical earth since the flat earth is what is commonly observed.
You need to convince those who trust their own eyes as to what they are seeing, that they are really looking at a sphere.

Hey flat earthers,
Would this be what our solar system looks like?


Think for once. Read some astronomy books.

Please flat earth believers, don't keep making a fool of yourself. If not for yourselves, do it for your family. Think of your children!

a reply to: Kromlech

Long range shooters, artillery, and ICBMs must compensate for Earth's rotation -- the coriolis effect. But never mind that inconvenient fact,

I realize this is a post from a year ago, but I would question a couple of things from it, if you are not logged in often enough to answer, maybe someone else from this thread can.
You cite something you are calling a fact without giving your source for it.
Can you show some evidence that this is a factual statement, that long range shooters calculate in the spinning of the earth?
For example, if you were a sniper, you would probably not be shooting over about a mile away from your target. The amount that the earth would have moved after pulling the trigger and before hitting your target would be something like one sixty-fourth of an inch. Can you quote from a sniper who says that before they pull the trigger, they think about the path of the bullet in relation to the position of the equator and think about how fast they were moving in the spin of the earth at that latitude and what the trajectory angle is to the lines of latitude, to make sure they do not lose that 1/64th in.?
Ok, that is one thing, the other is what follows that statement, which is a link to a video, which I would like to say is just lies.
At 3 minutes into the video, it shows an orange having a round piece cut from its outside and then goes on to say that if you look at the cut from a low angle, it is flat. Looking at it, it is clearly not flat, and is curved. For someone to be looking at the earth from that same angle, they would have to be looking with special sight that can look at the surface of the earth from a mile below it. These are strange gimmicks that spherical earth theory proponents like to pull on people who are at a five year old level and don't really understand what is being shown and told to them exactly but go ahead and accept their given conclusion anyway because it seems like the one speaking is intelligent and has some sort of authority and must know what they are talking about.
Watching more of this video, Why the Earth is not Flat, I realize I have seen this video before, and it is very deceptive in his next argument, about what the sun looks like as it passes over and goes to the horizon. The sun actually does often change observed size from one point to the other on its path, but varies by atmospheric conditions and does not always change size to the same degree.
The sun will look to be lower as it gets farther away on a plane, and will gradually disappear from your sight because you are not able to resolve its shape among all the various things squeezed together at the perspective vanishing point, but it has been shown over and over again that if you look through a telescope after it disappears from unaided sight, it will pop right back up into view.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Would this be what our solar system looks like?

No.
You are being absurd, as would be expected.
Hang on, I will give you a picture of what the earth and its surroundings would look like, I need to find it first.
But it is not a "solar system", that is a term used for a heliocentric theory.
It would be more like, the earth system.
Anyway, there is a model that shows what earth would look like from outside this system and all the clouds of points of light surrounding it. It is in a video so I need to look to find where it is, then I can give a link.
OK, here is the link to the video, but you see the problem, it is over 6 hours long.
Go to 5 hours and 46 minutes.
Here is a capture I made from that section of the video:

a reply to: LolliKum

The sun will look to be lower as it gets farther away on a plane, and will gradually disappear from your sight because you are not able to resolve its shape among all the various things squeezed together at the perspective vanishing point, but it has been shown over and over again that id you look through a telescope after it disappears from unaided sight, it will pop right back up into view.

Yet another reason why flat earthers are morons....

they will gladly lie about things to support their belief...

Thanks for showing my point in the other thread

a reply to: LolliKum

For example, if you were a sniper, you would probably not be shooting over about a mile away from your target. The amount that the earth would have moved after pulling the trigger and before hitting your target would be something like one sixty-fourth of an inch.

Incorrect.

Here’s an expample of error due to Coriolis effect: firing the same .308 175gr bullet at 2700fps muzzle velocity, from a latitude of 45° in the Northern Hemisphere, the deflection at 1000yds will be of 3in to right. At the North Pole, where the effect is maximum, the deflection will be a little more than four inches. The deflection will be the same in the Southern Hemisphere, but it will be to the left, instead.

loadoutroom.com...

a reply to: LolliKum

The sun will look to be lower as it gets farther away on a plane, and will gradually disappear from your sight because you are not able to resolve its shape among all the various things squeezed together at the perspective vanishing point, but it has been shown over and over again that if you look through a telescope after it disappears from unaided sight, it will pop right back up into view.

This is your explanation for sunset/night on a FE? You can see the Sun through a telescope at night? I really don't think so.

originally posted by: LolliKum
a reply to: Kromlech

The sun will look to be lower as it gets farther away on a plane, and will gradually disappear from your sight because you are not able to resolve its shape among all the various things squeezed together at the perspective vanishing point, but it has been shown over and over again that if you look through a telescope after it disappears from unaided sight, it will pop right back up into view.

First of all, I'll mostly ignore your quote about the Sun reappearing in a telescope after it seemingly has set when viewed with the naked eye; this is simply untrue, and is either an outright lie or a misinterpretation.

But not everyone has access to a good telescope in order to test this for themselves, so let's forget that and concentrate on what everyone CAN observe for themselves with the unaided eye...

According to your argument, the Sun disappears because it gets so far away from us that it is squeezed into a far-off perspective view and can no longer be resolved by the eye. OK -- let's go with that idea for a minute. If this were true, that would mean that the Sun would appear to get smaller and smaller to an observer as the afternoon went on, eventually becoming a tiny dot prior to disappearing from our eyes completely at sunset.

However, that's not what we observe at all. The Sun appears to be the same size in the sky throughout the entire day from sunrise to sunset. It does NOT go from a tiny dot at Sunrise, growing larger and larger as midday approaches, and the gets smaller and smaller towards evening until it vanishes due to perspective.

That is not what is observed. Instead, the Sun at sunrise and sunset is virtually the same apparent size as it is at midday.

Using the easily observed fact that the apparent diameter of the Sun does NOT change throughout the day, please explain how your "it's due to perspective" claim fits into this observation.

a reply to: LolliKum


That video - six hours of Eric Dubay? I would rather stick wasps up my bottom.

a reply to: LolliKum

Watching more of this video, Why the Earth is not Flat, I realize I have seen this video before, and it is very deceptive in his next argument, about what the sun looks like as it passes over and goes to the horizon. The sun actually does often change observed size from one point to the other on its path, but varies by atmospheric conditions and does not always change size to the same degree. The sun will look to be lower as it gets farther away on a plane, and will gradually disappear from your sight because you are not able to resolve its shape among all the various things squeezed together at the perspective vanishing point, but it has been shown over and over again that if you look through a telescope after it disappears from unaided sight, it will pop right back up into view.

So why does the sun and moon, perspective wise get bigger when they get closer to the horizon?


If it was flat and they should disappear due to perspective vanishing point then they should get smaller and be the biggest when directly above but its the opposite, directly above the sun can be covered by a small coin being help at hands length, when its very close to the horizon you need a basketball to cover the sun.

Its hard to grasp what position you are coming from.

These are strange gimmicks that spherical earth theory proponents like to pull on people who are at a five year old level and don't really understand what is being shown and told to them exactly but go ahead and accept their given conclusion anyway because it seems like the one speaking is intelligent and has some sort of authority and must know what they are talking about.

This says enough.

a reply to: LolliKum

Take a ride in an airplane. Flat Earth is now impossible. Sydney to Santiago.

a reply to: LolliKum

The sun does not get smaller and gradually disappear. It stays the same size until it dips below the horizon.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If this were true, that would mean that the Sun would appear to get smaller and smaller . . .

The way that perspective works, things get lower, that start out as being high, as it gets further away.
Someone earlier probably on another thread, said that Flat Earth was from the Middle Ages, but actually it was the Spherical Earth Model that came from the Middle Ages.
What I am seeing in this forum from sphere theory proponents is the idea that we need to basically look at the problem from the point of view of someone in the Middle ages.
I think what blew open the current interest in flat earth is the offering of the Nikon COOLPIX P900 to ordinary consumers and amateur experimenters, with a camera with 83x optical zoom plus digital zoom, to be able to look long distances and notice that things that we thought before was too far away to be able to see, were suddenly very visible and you could digital record it and put it on YouTube videos.
Anyway, this idea that the sun is always the same apparent size is something that gets claimed by spherical earth supporters but I have not seen proof of that and to the contrary have seen video of the sun getting smaller.

a reply to: LolliKum

Anyway, this idea that the sun is always the same apparent size is something that gets claimed by spherical earth supporters but I have not seen proof of that and to the contrary have seen video of the sun getting smaller.

Video? You can't go outside? Get one of these and see for yourself.
www.rainbowsymphonystore.com... wE