Flat earth theory?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

we are making progress , you agree that you can find objective facts about the shape of a lemon through observation

we can both reach the same conclusion about the shape of a lemon


now apply that to the earth

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Perfectly calm, thanks, it's Friday afternoon.

A fundamentalist Christian website with

TOP TEN UNDENIABLE PROOFS THE EARTH IS FLAT

?

You think those "Proofs" are undeniable, do you?

Thanks for the laughs, though.

Here you go, here is the lowdown on the real truth about gravity from a fundamentalist Christian (sort of) viewpoint which you will probably believe, too:

www.landoverbaptist.net... -only-a-theory-study-intelligent-falling-or-intelligent-pulling/

a reply to: oldcarpy

Deny them then, please.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Do I really have to? I have better things to do, like go home and sit in the garden with a cold one rather than having to take seriously woo-woo "scientific" claims on a loony Christian website. Have they got 10 Undeniable Proofs about the Creation, too, by any chance?

a reply to: oldcarpy



Your loss.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

To believe in a flat earth you have to believe that what you can see with your own eyes isn't real, that's not really the mark of mental stability

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: sapien82

I've seen some science from the FE'ers. To be honest it got me doubting.

Now I don't know.

But every time the flat earther's try to do actual science the keep accidentally proving the globe.

a reply to: captainpudding

Why is that?

a reply to: captainpudding

Everytime, like when they film objects on water miles away too?

Perhaps.

Some things are explained as globe and flat at the same time so it's pretty confusing.

I assume that when you were introduced to the globe earth theory first and have been believing it
for a while someone coming up with a flat earth theory is quite disturbing.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: captainpudding

Everytime, like when they film objects on water miles away too?

Perhaps.

Some things are explained as globe and flat at the same time so it's pretty confusing.

I assume that when you were introduced to the globe earth theory first and have been believing it
for a while someone coming up with a flat earth theory is quite disturbing.

If the earth was actually flat, why would anyone care? But the earth isn’t flat. So why are you disturbed by a spherical earth?

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm not.

I'm not disturbed by a spherical earth. You are.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1
How could we transmit signals from one specific point on Earth, via shortwave, over thousands of miles away from it....if the Earth was round?

It couldn't work, at all.

Only on a flat Earth, would it work. This proves Earth is flat, not a big ball.

Then why doesn’t all broadcasting frequencies work that way? Most be something inherent to shortwave.

Shortwave radio

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Radio waves in the shortwave band can be reflected or refracted from a layer of electrically charged atoms in the atmosphere called the ionosphere. Therefore, short waves directed at an angle into the sky can be reflected back to Earth at great distances, beyond the horizon. This is called skywave or "skip" propagation. Thus shortwave radio can be used for very long distance communication, in contrast to radio waves of higher frequency which travel in straight lines (line-of-sight propagation) and are limited by the visual horizon, about 64 km (40 miles).

Turbolag your a hack.

If that is the case, it still proves signals don't need to use 'satellites' to transmit over extremely long distances.

Thanks for proving my argument, even if you didn't think it would!!

a reply to: turbonium1

Again. Satellites don’t broadcast in the shortwave band.

A swing and another miss by Turbolag. Flat Esther’s zero, science concerning spherical earth batting 1000.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

I'm not.

I'm not disturbed by a spherical earth. You are.

It it’s what it is. And it’s spherical. Why would anyone devote resources to lying about a spherical earth if the earth was always flat?

a reply to: turbonium1

en.m.wikipedia.org...

VHF signals with frequencies above about 30 MHz usually penetrate the ionosphere and are not returned to the Earth's surface. E-skip is a notable exception, where VHF signals including FM broadcast and VHF TV signals are frequently reflected to the Earth during late spring and early summer. E-skip rarely affects UHF frequencies, except for very rare occurrences below 500 MHz.

Frequencies below approximately 10 MHz (wave lengths longer than 30 meters), including broadcasts in the mediumwave and shortwave bands (and to some extent longwave), propagate most efficiently by skywave at night. Frequencies above 10 MHz (wavelengths shorter than 30 meters) typically propagate most efficiently during the day. Frequencies lower than 3 kHz have a wave length longer than the distance between the Earth and the ionosphere. The maximum usable frequency for skywave propagation is strongly influenced by sunspot number.

Skywave propagation is usually degraded – sometimes seriously – during geomagnetic storms. Skywave propagation on the sunlit side of the Earth can be entirely disrupted during sudden ionospheric disturbances.

Because the lower-altitude layers (the E-layer in particular) of the ionosphere largely disappear at night, the refractive layer of the ionosphere is much higher above the surface of the Earth at night. This leads to an increase in the "skip" or "hop" distance of the skywave at night.

Nobody has yet addressed the fact that when we rise above the surface, we see the horizon rise up, which proves the Earth is a flat surface. If it were round, we'd never see the horizon rise up at all.

On a spherical surface, the highest point to see, is from the surface itself. Because it is a sphere, you are always on 'top' of it, no matter where you are. Everywhere else around you is curving DOWNWARD from your position.

As we know, the horizon rises up with those viewing it from an air balloon, for example. This would be impossible, if it were really a spherical Earth. No matter how large the sphere, it is impossible for the horizon to rise up,

Imagine a ball. The top of the ball is your position on it. Around you, the surface goes downward. It has to go downward, around you. It doesn't matter how big a ball is, it has to go downward, from your position.


To see the horizon rise as we rise, proves it cannot be a sphere. The horizon cannot rise up as we rise, if we rise above a sphere - no matter what size it is.

Reminds me of the Firesign Theater schtick:

"I'm tired. I want to go home. The sun is going down."

"No, no my boy, you're confused. The horizon is moving up!"

"I know, let's stand him on his head!"

"Wh, whoa!"

"You see! Now it's morning!"

a reply to: turbonium1

Except when your on a hill /mountain looking down hill / mountain.

Yes, when your in a valley looking up hill the “horizon rises up”

Your such a hack.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Again. Satellites don’t broadcast in the shortwave band.

A swing and another miss by Turbolag. Flat Esther’s zero, science concerning spherical earth batting 1000.

It's simply about their claims, which you believe as if true. No matter how they don't make any sense, no matter how they haven't proven any of them.

You claimed that satellites are really in 'orbit', because we could not transmit signals worldwide, unless by using satellites in 'orbit'.

When I showed you that is not true, by pointing out shortwave signals, you now try to change your argument, because you've lost the original argument...

It's worse than the original argument, a remarkable achievement, in itself.

What you are now claiming is that 'satellites' don't use shortwave signals, they use microwave signals.

Many types of EM signals are known to exist, now. Radar, and sonar, were not known to exist, for centuries. Only in the last century, we found that they exist.

If any type of unknown signal is later discovered, we know about it, soon afterwards. I'd prefer to have proof the signals really exist, and if they do, it's not proven the signals work as claimed to work, which is not proven at all, of course, because it's not even proven to exist, as yet, or not confirmed to exist, or demonstrated to exist, in the same way all other signals were proven to exist, as true, as real, as 100% fact.

You believe whatever they claim is 100% true, and say prove otherwise, if you can, when it's not proven to begin with....


Prove that satellites exist, in 'orbit', if you can.

Prove that a rocket really flies up, into 'orbit', if you can.


I've never even seen a rocket fly up to airplane altitudes, and neither have you, or anyone else, seen it.

How would they be able to land humans on the moon, but cannot show a rocket flying towards 'orbit', from Earth, knowing where we could see it, from Earth, then?

If they really sent rockets into 'orbit', they'd tell us where to see it go up towards 'orbit', after they launch from Earth.

Why do you think they never tell us where a rocket goes, and where to see it, after launch?

It's simple to figure out, even for you.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Except when your on a hill /mountain looking down hill / mountain.

Yes, when your in a valley looking up hill the “horizon rises up”

Your such a hack.

I know the horizon won't rise when we rise, if it was a sphere, it would be impossible.