Flat Earth.... flame free, please.

[DogmaHunter]

Of course it can be replicated, it just can't be proven to be conclusive.

Why is it, that if you keep flying in the same direction, you ultimately end up where you started again?

Is there some "portal" at the edge of the earth, which transports you to its opposite side or something?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This won't be received well, but you really do need to attempt to understand the paradigm you are arguing against. Likewise, I hear from globers how much they understand about the topic, than go off and say things like the Eratosthenes experiment makes sense. That's like saying ships disappear over a horizon. Huge red flag. Of course when it's pointed out, it's never received well.

And then when you say things like 'It's basis is not experimentation, understanding and "knowledge". It is slandering the opponent.', I know you're clueless on the topic. I don't know why you are even bothering with it. It's like me attempting to discuss flaws in marine biology by pointing at a chicken and yelling 'PRETTY FISH!'.

I suggest spending maybe a few weeks watching the Globebusters or Globebusters 2 feeds for a couple weeks, then you could begin to make a valid argument against it, having learned what it actually is you are arguing against.

Or, you could just tell us.

 

[SeventyOne]

Why is it, that if you keep flying in the same direction, you ultimately end up where you started again?

Is there some "portal" at the edge of the earth, which transports you to its opposite side or something?

Because compasses work the same in both models, pivoting around magnetic north.

 

[SeventyOne]

Or, you could just tell us.

Tried that on numerous past threads. Nothing but insults and ignorance for responses. I don't do that on this topic any longer, at least not on this forum.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because compasses work the same in both models, pivoting around magnetic north.

That doesn't work.

You can fly a straight line over north (first in front of you later behind you) and you'll still end up in the place where you started.

 

[Freodin]

That doesn't work.

You can fly a straight line over north (first in front of you later behind you) and you'll still end up in the place where you started.

But that would require you to fly over the south pole as well, and we all know that this is impossible because the NASA shoots down all the planes who try to fly over the ice wall!

 

[Halbhh]

And you can walk the continent and still not see a globe shape.
I've driven on the great salt flats and let my dog out to run.
It all seemed pretty flat.

Nice photo!

 

[SeventyOne]

That doesn't work.

You can fly a straight line over north (first in front of you later behind you) and you'll still end up in the place where you started.

Why would you end up in the same place?

 

[Halbhh]

That doesn't work.

You can fly a straight line over north (first in front of you later behind you) and you'll still end up in the place where you started.

Sure, but more simple, and thus even more likely to be helpful I think is to remove the 2nd topic, and just have the one thing.

Simplifying then, we could ask: 'What happens if a person flies an airplane in one direction, straight east for instance, and continues?'

If someone thinks there is an edge or end or wall, etc., where is that on the map? Could we send an expedition to investigate?

If someone claims the end/edge/boundary is in the Pacific for instance: "What happens when U.S. Navy ships sail west from the U.S. west coast, or Pearl Harbor, heading west? How do they get to Japan going West?


....
(oh, bad feeling then it's going to be a governmental conspiracy, right? ugh)

 

[Halbhh]

This won't be received well, but you really do need to attempt to understand the paradigm you are arguing against. Likewise, I hear from globers how much they understand about the topic, than go off and say things like the Eratosthenes experiment makes sense. That's like saying ships disappear over a horizon. Huge red flag. Of course when it's pointed out, it's never received well.

And then when you say things like 'It's basis is not experimentation, understanding and "knowledge". It is slandering the opponent.', I know you're clueless on the topic. I don't know why you are even bothering with it. It's like me attempting to discuss flaws in marine biology by pointing at a chicken and yelling 'PRETTY FISH!'.

I suggest spending maybe a few weeks watching the Globebusters or Globebusters 2 feeds for a couple weeks, then you could begin to make a valid argument against it, having learned what it actually is you are arguing against.

What I'd like to ask someone that truly believed the Earth is flat with edges/boundaries/sides --

"Have you ever talked with, been friends with, anyone, anyone anywhere that sailed for years in the U.S. Navy?"

Example: World War II Vet, or Korean War Vet. Or just any Navy vet that sailed for years.

Ask them about whether the Earth has an edge/end/boundary for the East-West boundary.

What does the vet say? What does a modern U.S. sailor say to them when asked?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why would you end up in the same place?

Because that would be like flying a line/circle of longitude.

 

[SeventyOne]

What I'd like to ask someone that truly believed the Earth is flat with edges/boundaries/sides --

"Have you ever talked with, been friends with, anyone, anyone anywhere that sailed for years in the U.S. Navy?"

Example: World War II Vet, or Korean War Vet. Or just any Navy vet that sailed for years.

Ask them about whether the Earth has an edge/end/boundary for the East-West boundary.

What does the vet say? What does a modern U.S. sailor say to them when asked?

Why would they know anything more about it?

 

[SeventyOne]

Because that would be like flying a line/circle of longitude.

He makes it sound like one is starting at a point, flying over the north pole and arriving at the same point on the other side, which doesn't make sense on either model. So, I'm wondering what aspect I'm missing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

He makes it sound like one is starting at a point, flying over the north pole and arriving at the same point on the other side, which doesn't make sense on either model. So, I'm wondering what aspect I'm missing.

As Freodin pointed out, if you continue, you'd cross over the South Pole and then approach your starting point

 

[Jimmy D]

Because compasses work the same in both models, pivoting around magnetic north.

So if I fly from Australia to Canada I should head north, pass by the North pole and then head south?

 

[Halbhh]

Why would they know anything more about it?

Because someone having sailed from the U.S. to Japan or Austrailia will have sailed across the Pacific Ocean, and know whether it has a boundary in the East-West direction, or not. If not then --

They should know whether or not they went by Hawaii. They should know whether they had to sail in a Northward direction, or not.

If they sailed from Hawaii to Australia, they should know whether the direction they sailed was mostly SouthWest, or instead a different direction like NorthWest.

They should know whether they had to change direction as they sailed, to turn, as they sailed, or if instead they went consistently in one direction the whole time.

 

[SeventyOne]

As Freodin pointed out, if you continue, you'd cross over the South Pole and then approach your starting point

Oh, north-south circumnavigation. In theory, I suppose, on a globe. Funny thing is that it has yet to be done.

There is a guy credited with currently holding that record. He's on Facebook with the name 'ZQ Pilot'. His plan was on the white line below, cross Antarctica and come up around the other side. The reality of the trip was he went to Antarctica, found he couldn't go across it and turned around and came back to where he started that leg of the journey (colored line, legs 2 and 3). But he still got credit for circumnavigation. Go figure.

 

[Freodin]

This won't be received well, but you really do need to attempt to understand the paradigm you are arguing against. Likewise, I hear from globers how much they understand about the topic, than go off and say things like the Eratosthenes experiment makes sense. That's like saying ships disappear over a horizon. Huge red flag. Of course when it's pointed out, it's never received well.

And then when you say things like 'It's basis is not experimentation, understanding and "knowledge". It is slandering the opponent.', I know you're clueless on the topic. I don't know why you are even bothering with it. It's like me attempting to discuss flaws in marine biology by pointing at a chicken and yelling 'PRETTY FISH!'.

I suggest spending maybe a few weeks watching the Globebusters or Globebusters 2 feeds for a couple weeks, then you could begin to make a valid argument against it, having learned what it actually is you are arguing against.

I'll try... I'll try hard... though I don't know if I can make it.

So how does the sun work on the Flat Earth, according to Jeranism? I found a video that he deliberately made to respond to this question.

A half an hour video. I'm now at six minutes in, and all he has done is ranted about the "Globe lie", CGI, Santa Clause... and demonstrated a number of time that he simply doesn't understand the concepts he attacks. He shows over and over that he has not the slightest clue about the scales involved in this topic.

He pulls up a software model of the solar system, and laments that there is nothing of that extremely fast motion to be seen in real time. Does he really not understand the SCALE of that model, or is he trying to play his audience for stupid?

Let's take just this little tidbit at around 5:50. "It is just sitting in space. Weeeee! Look at how fast we are going!"
He wants to see the motion in real time. That's what he set the simulation to.
The length of Earth's orbit around the sun is about 940 million kilometers. It takes one years to complete this course.
That means Earth moves about 2.57 million kilometers on this path every day.
That means Earth moves about 30 km each second. Earth has a diameter of about 12750 km.

The image of Earth on his screen takes up about 1/5 of the width. 340 pixel on a 1920 pixel width (and the video is only 1740 px even on full screen).
So one pixel on screen is about 38 km.
The Earth in this simulation moves at the astonishing speed of ONE PIXEL PER SECOND. Blindingly fast. Weeeee!
He doesn't even keep the simulation still for a second. He is always zooming, turning, changing angles.
One pixel per second, when he is zoomed in closest. A lot less than that when he is zoomed out farther. But he laments that he doesn't see any movement.

Speed is absolute for him. At 6:00 "We are going at a million miles per hour."
Yes (I haven't done the calculation on that. I shouldn't trust anything he says without checking it. But basically I am too frustrated with his stuff already to do the stupid conversation to imperial. So let's say: ok, a million miles per hour)
So, yes. But a million miles per hour on a course that takes A YEAR to complete. On a scale where a "Million miles per hour" means "one pixel or less per second".

Scale. He doesn't get it.
Is that ignorance or dishonesty?

He's clearly showing that he doesn't understand what he is talking about... and I haven't even reached the part where he tries to explain how his sun works.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why would you end up in the same place?

Because the earth is a sphere and you'ld be flying around it in circles.

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh, north-south circumnavigation. In theory, I suppose, on a globe. Funny thing is that it has yet to be done.

There is a guy credited with currently holding that record. He's on Facebook with the name 'ZQ Pilot'. His plan was on the white line below, cross Antarctica and come up around the other side. The reality of the trip was he went to Antarctica, found he couldn't go across it and turned around and came back to where he started that leg of the journey (colored line, legs 2 and 3). But he still got credit for circumnavigation. Go figure.

View attachment 247322

Didn't Sir Ranulph Fiennes do it?