Debunking Flat Earth

[Shrewd Manager]

Why can't he use the generalized n-body problem?

He could ride to the moon on a laser beam and become superman with Michiu Kaku, but still wouldn't be able to crunch those numbers.

It would take a megapolymonstermath, I'd have thought. Maybe you can produce that proof. Let's start with some reliable data on the 'mass' of each of the 'planets'.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

What if we run the numbers and figure out the topography of the island and locate distinctive landmarks on the island and discover that 500 feet are hidden, or 1,500 feet are hidden rather than the calculated 1,000?

Well, I can see you guys giving me 4 colours of grief over the vagaries of exactly how much of the island is or is not obscured, and by what etc etc.

That's why I presented a simpler example in #763, an 18 mile across lake point to point.

 

[46AND2]

Well, I can see you guys giving me 4 colours of grief over the vagaries of exactly how much of the island is or is not obscured, and by what etc etc.

That's why I presented a simpler example in #763, an 18 mile across lake point to point.

Yes, we are aware that you posted that video in an attempt to avoid answering the problems facing flat-earthers from the previous video.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

By noting mathematical relations in the results of the sky-staring, and developing a theoretical model that explains them.

Kepler stared at the sky a lot and using little more than complicated geometry and trigonometry discovered his laws of planetary motion. The orbits are ellipses. The orbits sweep out equal areas in equal times. The period of the orbit is related to the size of the ellipse. These are observational regularities. Why do these regularities exist? Kepler didn't know. But it was a work of genius to even discover them through careful observation.

The genius of Newton was to see that a theory of gravity with an inverse square law explains all three of Kepler's Laws.



You don't actually know what you're talking about here. The fact that the name of the situation has 'problem' in it does not mean that the theory 'has a problem'. We can write the equations of motion for the general two body problem in a closed form. We can't for the general three body problem. (Or n body problem). This has nothing to do with whether the theory is valid.

You have no reliable data as to the 'masses' of 'planets' or the sun, much less their distances. You can't show how (say) mercury at it's aphelion when all other planets are somewhere behind it, isn't pulled out of orbit. Plus you need to theorise 95% of the universe in order to even pretend to start making sense. It really is beyond vacuous.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I can demonstrate that the world is an oblate spheroid. You just keep asserting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Okay, and feel free to show me how all the water isn't also pulled towards the centre in massive tidal waves.

It is experimentally demonstrated to be true every time we do an experiment. It is predictive and falsifiable. That is science. All you have to do is demonstrate that gravity as we understand it is not true, falsify it. Can you do that?

Didn't Einstein falsify Newtonian gravity? So the warping of spacetime causes gravity. You want I should falsify that?

They would know if their calculations are true or not.

Probably engineers design these items to order in good faith. But even if the 'spaceship' gets built, nobody's getting in it and going to space. They don't have seals and o-rings for the job, for starters. It's just vain imaginings.

But look Clisby, you're obviously totally sold on this bunk, so there's not much point me trying to persuade you of anything. You could do some research, you'd find that 6 out of 7 Challenger Astronots have been found alive and well, and the deception runs deep. Somehow I don't think you're ready to look into it.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Yes, we are aware that you posted that video in an attempt to avoid answering the problems facing flat-earthers from the previous video.

I answered by saying 1000ft should be hidden and it wasn't. But for a 'cleaner' example, I posted that, then you retorted with same flaming remark about handwaving, as I recall.

 

[46AND2]

I answered by saying 1000ft should be hidden and it wasn't. But for a 'cleaner' example, I posted that, then you retorted with same flaming remark about handwaving, as I recall.

That isn't an answer for why there is ANY significant amount of missing land on a flat earth model. Your "answer" IS nothing more than a hand wave of the question which was asked of you. It's like if you claimed that bigfoot attacked you, and I showed you a DNA sample of the fur left behind indicated that it was just a bear, and you retorted with, "how do you explain these scratches I have on my body?"

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That is the distinction as I was taught it - do you have a different view?

It's an artificial distinction. The point was material science relies on certain metaphysical presuppositions. "Above the door to the temple of science is written the words 'Ye must have faith'". Think that was Max Planck. Or maybe you know better.

See, it's overreaching in the extreme and nothing but pride and puffery hiding behind a veneer of scientific objectivity to assert any real knowledge, without a theological basis, at least in the sense of an overarching generative and governing principle. Otherwise you're like the Indians fumbling with the elephant in the dark room.

Einstein's absolute standard was explicit, the speed of light.

Oh the irony. Einstein was rejecting absolutism in principle (an absolute rejection lol!) So to employ an 'absolute' in the service of relativity is really rich. The devil can't get rid of that accursed share.

So look, if you reject absolute certainty, then out goes truth, and you have no ground on which to stand, apart from making claims of the nature 'this convention is prettier than that one'. Truth, not your business. Leave that to those of us with eyes to see and lips to praise God.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That isn't an answer for why there is ANY significant amount of missing land on a flat earth model. Your "answer" IS nothing more than a hand wave of the question which was asked of you. It's like if you claimed that bigfoot attacked you, and I showed you a DNA sample of the fur left behind indicated that it was just a bear, and you retorted with, "how do you explain these scratches I have on my body?"

You may the right to arm bears over there, but the truth is, just as per your remark regarding the boat, we don't know how much if any of the island is obscured. So rather than wasting our time on a speculative endeavour, I gave a more straightforward example.

 

[46AND2]

You may the right to arm bears over there, but the truth is, just as per your remark regarding the boat, we don't know how much if any of the island is obscured. So rather than wasting our time on a speculative endeavour, I gave a more straightforward example.

Right to bear arms? What the...?

*sigh* But we do know that some of the island is obscured. The entire town of Avalon is missing.

Anyway, there is a way you can determine how much is missing, but it takes a bit of work. This video is from Huntington beach, and to a different part of the island, but the results speak for themselves:

So....can you please, now, explain why the bottom hundreds of feet are hidden?

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't know if others have found this, but it is getting every increasingly difficult to google for FE sites that present the argument for the FE. I do know that some "right" leaning sites that expose the fake news of all that is going on and many sites are almost impossible to find now. Google and YouTube have changed their search algorithms so that things are more difficult to find.

The question is why? If something is totally wrong and there is no evidence for it... Why are they working hard to conceal it.

I used to be able to google and find lots of these...

Anyway, I can no longer tell people to "google" it. They will never have the patience to find the proper search request to access the things that are being concealed.

I did find this, however, after much difficulty.

Stunning long range imaging over 100 miles in infrared reveals the amazing flat earth reality!, page 1

 

[Shrewd Manager]

So....can you please, now, explain why the bottom hundreds of feet are hidden?

Probably swell. Cause when you have the sea bed moving at around 900 mph underneath that body of water, it's bound to create some turbulence. (I'm presuming the water's somehow entrained to earth's motion in your model?) Why not try it experimentally with a scale model. Or just consider it. Tidal waves, that's what it must be, caused by the massive shear force exerted by motion of the sea bed due to earth rotation.

It's good to know that Catalina cliffs are max around 700ft, they should be totally obscured in the JTolan vid I posted.

So what about the point to point 18 mile mirror flash? There's scores of similar vids to this. This has been done to death, and producing the odd anomaly that you can squeeze into a ball model is really too little too late.

 

[Shemjaza]

Probably swell. Cause when you have the sea bed moving at around 900 mph underneath that body of water, it's bound to create some turbulence. (I'm presuming the water's somehow entrained to earth's motion in your model?) Why not try it experimentally with a scale model. Or just consider it. Tidal waves, that's what it must be, caused by the massive shear force exerted by motion of the sea bed due to earth rotation.

It's good to know that Catalina cliffs are max around 700ft, they should be totally obscured in the JTolan vid I posted.

So what about the point to point 18 mile mirror flash? There's scores of similar vids to this. This has been done to death, and producing the odd anomaly that you can squeeze into a ball model is really too little too late.

Water is held in place by gravity and is moving along with the rest of the surface of the Earth.

If you have ever been inside an plane objects inside function just like when you are stationary. You can throw a ball or pour a drink and it doesn't matter that the vessel you are inside is moving at almost a thousand kilometers per hour.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Water is held in place by gravity and is moving along with the rest of the surface of the Earth.

Water is a fluid medium. Gravity may keep it down, but doesn't hold it to earth spinning underneath it.

If you have ever been inside an plane objects inside function just like when you are stationary.

How is the spinning orbiting earth like a plane? How is it enclosed?

 

[Shemjaza]

Water is a fluid medium. Gravity may keep it down, but doesn't hold it to earth spinning underneath it.

It does if it's moving at the same speed. Force comes from acceleration, not velocity.

How is the spinning orbiting earth like a plane? How is it enclosed?

The atmosphere and it isn't spinning against a static medium. There's just vacuum above the Earth, so no real friction.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It does if it's moving at the same speed. Force comes from acceleration, not velocity.

And in the helio model the earth is constantly accelerating and decelerating as it rotates away and towards the direction of orbital travel.

The atmosphere and it isn't spinning against a static medium. There's just vacuum above the Earth, so no real friction.

The atmosphere is not a solid barrier and free space has impedance/ resistance, and apparently cis-lunar space is not a perfect vacuum. so it should get blown away. Plus why doesn't the atmosphere not get sucked into the massive low-pressure vacuum to make equilibrium by the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Let me guess - coz gravity?

 

[Shemjaza]

And in the helio model the earth is constantly accelerating and decelerating as it rotates away and towards the direction of orbital travel.

That doesn't make sense.

What is accelerating and decelerating the Earth in your understanding of the heliocentric model?

The atmosphere is not a solid barrier and free space has impedance/ resistance, and apparently cis-lunar space is not a perfect vacuum. so it should get blown away. Plus why doesn't the atmosphere not get sucked into the massive low-pressure vacuum to make equilibrium by the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Let me guess - coz gravity?

It may not be an absolute vacuum, but it is close enough.

Also as to why the atmosphere doesn't just float away, gravity. Close to the Earth the force of gravity acting on the atmosphere overcomes the pressure differential.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Probably swell. Cause when you have the sea bed moving at around 900 mph underneath that body of water.... it's bound to create some turbulence. (I'm presuming the water's somehow entrained to earth's motion in your model?)

No no no. We're asking about the explanation in your model. Our model works fine. The earth is curved, so you can't see the bottom of the island. You claim the earth is flat. Why is a significant portion of Catalina Island obscured in the video you yourself promoted as evidence in favor of your model?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

No no no. We're asking about the explanation in your model. Our model works fine. The earth is curved, so you can't see the bottom of the island. You claim the earth is flat. Why is a significant portion of Catalina Island obscured in the video you yourself promoted as evidence in favor of your model?

I don't believe it is. All that's been claimed is that we can't see the township. As I said, the entirety of those facing parts of the island should be obscured on ball math predictions.

Have a look at the 18 mile mirror flash vid. There's many more where that came from.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't believe it is. All that's been claimed is that we can't see the township. As I said, the entirety of those facing parts of the island should be obscured on ball math predictions.

Different amounts of the island are obscured at different elevations. Remember how much you liked the word 'isthmus'? Remember how you didn't answer the question of why the island is obscured?