Flat earth theory?

a reply to: oldcarpy

That video - six hours of Eric Dubay? I would rather . . .

Don't worry about it. As soon as I posted that link and capture from the video, I realized it was not the same one that I was thinking of. Since then I have been going through my bookmarked videos and my favorited videos and my video history to try to find the one I had just seen a few days ago, and so far have not found it.
I have the problem that I figured I could just go back to these videos later but it is pretty hard to find one thing in a whole mess of videos that results from watching YT basically all day.
I started now to make notes with addresses and the info I think is important, and the time in the video to find it, which I should have been doing for the last 3 months.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

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

Not really. I mean, I am sure it seems like a good argument to make, and I think the main argument to some people.
There is a video, as an example, with a title something like, "Flat Earth Totally Debunked" where the author only had one argument, which is "the sun is always the same size" while standing next to his telescope and with him expalaining how he made it by putting different parts together to end up with something really great.
Problem is that he never actually showed anything that came through his telescope to back up what he was saying.
He did not even mention how you would go about determining what the size of the sun is.

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

What?
I have been on airplanes and have flow across the Atlantic, and all the way across the Pacific, and across the US from one side to the other quite a few times.
It looks pretty flat to me.
I think you might have a problem thinking about how travel works on a flat earth.
Here is how it works:
You have a compass which always points to the North Pole.
There is no South Pole. This is where people's thinking fail, they cannot reconcile travel with a compass because they were taught that there are two pints to the needle, one pointing North and one pointing South.
OK, that was wrong.
One end of the needle in a compass points to the center of the flat earth, and the other points to the outside of the earth.
So, it would in practical terms, work the same as you would expect in a spherical earth except if you for example started out going West and you kept going West according to your compass, you would eventually end up where you started, but instead of going around a great ball, you went in a big circle on a flat disk.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

. . . you need a basketball to cover the sun.

I am guessing you are exaggerating for effect.
Hard for me to say what the explanation is, just from your description.
It could be an anomaly in your eye where you see clouds or moisture in the air lit up by the Sun to make it seem bigger than it really, is.
It is a good idea to use a good camera with a telescopic zoom so you can make out the exact point where the Sun stops and the atmosphere begins.

originally posted by: LolliKum
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

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

There is a video, as an example, with a title something like, "Flat Earth Totally Debunked" where the author only had one argument, which is "the sun is always the same size" while standing next to his telescope...

...Problem is that he never actually showed anything that came through his telescope to back up what he was saying.
He did not even mention how you would go about determining what the size of the sun is.

Why would anyone need a telescope to tell them that the apparent size of the Sun does not shrink to a tiny dot due to perspective, until it can no longer be seen at sunset?

It’s easy for anyone to tell that the Sun does NOT appear to grow from an invisible dot at sunrise to a midday size, and then appear to shrink again in the afternoon before disappearing at sunset.

No telescope required.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Why would anyone need a telescope to tell them that the apparent size of the Sun does not shrink to a tiny dot due to perspective, until it can no longer be seen at sunset?

The Sun never gets that small and no one thinks it does as you describe.
Seriously, this is stated by astronauts that they cannot ever see stars from the Space Station because the sun never leaves, there is never any night that high up, the sun is always visible, it just goes around in a big circle.
So, the Sun never disappears from being too small to see, it disappears from the point of view of people on the earth, this is the action of perspective and the vanishing point, if you were 120 miles off the surface, it would never disappear.

a reply to: LolliKum

how does the space station stay in the air with a flat earth? lol

a reply to: LolliKum

this is stated by astronauts that they cannot ever see stars from the Space Station because the sun never leaves, there is never any night that high up, the sun is always visible,

False

a reply to: Phage

Here is the video that you linked to in your post:
The presenter in this video describes some theoretic stuff to understand what it is taking about in a chart to figure in spin of the earth to your target shooting.
My suggestion would be to look at this video:
At 5:25 the expert here is basically saying you are stupid to think you can get more accurate than that anyway at those kinds of distances.
The LoadOut article is pretty much the same sort of thing as the video you linked to, theoretical stuff but a little more detailed and with more terminology.

a reply to: LolliKum

At 5:25 the expert here is basically saying you are stupid to think you can get more accurate than that anyway at those kinds of distances.

He doesn't say anyone is stupid. He says that no matter how many factors you take into account there are factors that are going to influence your shot adversely. That doesn't mean you say "Screw it, I'm going to miss anyway."

But you said that the Coriolis effect causes an error of only 1/64th of an inch at the range of a mile. That is stupid. Unless, of course, you can show your math. It's your claim. Prove it.

a reply to: Phage

Unless, of course, you can show your math.

It is sort of impossible to calculate. I mean it is not something I am supporting anyway, the idea of the earth spinning.
If you were calculating it the way the guy in your video explained it, that the earth is moving under the traveling bullet, then it would miss by about 700 feet. Of course this is not how things work.
The Coriolis force, according to Wikipedia seems to be quite the opposite and is more in effect at the poles and non-existent at the equator so has nothing to do with the speed the earth theoretically is moving under a bullet.
So, really, I don't have any idea where they get this idea of how the rotation of the earth makes a bullet always miss to one side.
The amount I quoted was from a video of a talk by someone who had interviewed a military sniper and a military artilleryman, who told him there is not enough of that sort of variance to even consider.
As far as I know, no one takes into consideration, rotation, or a spherical nature of the earth when calculating ballistics.
There are government and military documents that have become public that state that you must always consider the earth as a flat plane when making calculations about artillery or rockets.
Also there is a declassified CIA document on the nature of the shape of the earth that says it is a flat plane but it has not been determined the exact outer shape or the total size of it.
In the Wikipedia article, en.wikipedia.org... , it says there is a case in World War One of a German Gun used to bombard Paris and it had to be adjusted to compensate for the spin of the earth, but that could be deliberate wartime disinformation to throw off the enemy to waste time with crazy calculations.

a reply to: LolliKum

It is sort of impossible to calculate.

Then you made it up? About the 1/64th inch?

If you were calculating it the way the guy in your video explained it, that the earth is moving under the traveling bullet, then it would miss by about 700 feet.

Why? Do you think the target is not rotating too?

So, really, I don't have any idea where they get this idea of how the rotation of the earth makes a bullet always miss to one side.

Yeah. I didn't think you understood the concept. Here's a hint:

As far as I know, no one takes into consideration, rotation, or a spherical nature of the earth when calculating ballistics.

You don't know much except flat Earth nonsense. We know that.

a reply to: LolliKum

There are government and military documents that have become public that state that you must always consider the earth as a flat plane when making calculations about artillery or rockets.
Also there is a declassified CIA document on the nature of the shape of the earth that says it is a flat plane but it has not been determined the exact outer shape or the total size of it.

citations required

Demonstrating how Coriolis effects bullet drop at 1000 yards

a reply to: Grimpachi

Technically, that would be centrifugal force. Which, as it happens, is as mythical as Coriolis force.

But both are very real effects. But not forces.

a reply to: LolliKum

Um. You mean like this?

a reply to: ADSE255

Well, it's true that math is not reality but it does model reality quite well.

Geometry for example. One word: Polaris. How does that work on a flat world, exactly? (Meaning, show your work, don't just wave your arms.)

Another word: parallax.


Sorry, I don't have a heavy bass beat with a video. Does that disqualify me?

a reply to: Phage

You could always press mute. I mean if it's mathematically possible.

a reply to: ADSE255

But then I wouldn't get the logic.

When I first heard of flat Earth theory I joined a forum thinking it was all a big joke. I had so much fun with the coming up with mathematical conclusions for any question without any regard for an all-encompassing theory. And then I remembered the day when I realized people were serious with that crap. I slowly backed out in horror.