Debunking Flat Earth

JacksBratt said:

That's fine... until you, then, want to change the goal posts and state that there is "Coriolis" effect...You cannot have both.

Either everything is in motion and carries along with the rotation of the earth.... As water, air and all objects keep moving like inside a vessel....

Or, it doesn't

Click to expand...

You only had to do a trivial search to discover how it works:

Shrewd Manager said:

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

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are asking. The oceans stay in place because they are spinning at the same rate as the planet and gravity holds them in place.

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

Click to expand...

Not quite. Newtonian physics works great at relatively slow speeds, it doe snot at high speeds or subatomic.

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.

Click to expand...

There are seals that have been tested on earth to perform in the environment of space. Why don't you think we have seals that can seal in space?

But look Clisby, you're obviously totally sold on this bunk, so there's not much point me trying to persuade you of anything.

Click to expand...

You see, this is the difference between you and me. I am not "sold" on anything, these things I believe to be true are substantiated by real data and experimentation, observation etc. You just seem to make more claims to support your ideas, like we cannot make seals for space.

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.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is show me that 6 of the 7 challenger astronauts are alive. These are just more claims to justify your position. Making more claims does not demonstrate another claim is true.

Also, I notice that when you respond to people you don't respond to everything that was said. You cherry pick what you want to respond to. Why? I respond to every idea you post.

Kylie said:

Probably to stop wrong ideas for which there are no evidence for from being promoted as fact.

Click to expand...

If there was no evidence then the idea should die out. Governments and other organizations do not waste their time on things, unless they are a threat.

The problem is, the FE people are presenting things that are not easily debated. Many things about the globe... are just believed only because that is what we have been taught since our earliest thoughts and observations.

Take some time and look at them. Too many people are laughing and taunting without actually thinking.

Remember, all FE'ers started at the same point.. in a state of disbelief.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

You only had to do a trivial search to discover how it works:

"In popular (non-technical) usage of the term "Coriolis effect", the rotating reference frame implied is almost always the Earth. Because the Earth spins, Earth-bound observers need to account for the Coriolis force to correctly analyze the motion of objects. The Earth completes one rotation per day, so for motions of everyday objects the Coriolis force is usually quite small compared to other forces; its effects generally become noticeable only for motions occurring over large distances and long periods of time, such as large-scale movement of air in the atmosphere or water in the ocean. Such motions are constrained by the surface of the Earth, so only the horizontal component of the Coriolis force is generally important." Wikipedia​

Click to expand...

Thank you for that "wiki" quote. However, I can go in and edit any wiki site... It's not really a valid place to get support for an argument.

I have, however, listened to expert sharp shooters from Canadian and US military talking about the factors that effect these incredible long range feats....

Guess what... out of at least 10 variables... not one was "Coriolis".

THE W said:

why don't we start off with some scriptural passages and work from there?


….anything?

Click to expand...

OK, but, thought that the videos may present enough biblical study for you to see it..

Here are 240, around that many anyway.

Over 200 Bible scriptures say the earth is FLAT! #FlatEarthDoctrine

Strathos said:

Awfully convenient how the magic cutoff point for how far you can see things on a flat earth is only a bit farther than it is on a round earth... but never far enough that it can't be accounted for by refraction.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are objects that are quite clear, well beyond the distance that they should be able to be seen on the globe... that is.. if the globe is the size that they say it is.

First, they told us you could see it from a plane... Just look... Then.. they said you need to be much higher than a commercial air liner... But, they sent up balloons with real cameras, not fish eye lenses... and they still could not see it.

Then, Neil DeGrass Tyson said that we cannot go high enough to see the curve. He also said that it is pear shaped while NASA pictures show a nice sphere.

There is a lot of goal post moving and ambiguity on this subject... when it comes to how far up we should be before we can see the curve...

There is, however, a truth of the rate at which it curves.. and... things are seen that should be hidden.

We do see too far and "refraction" as an excuse, is getting worn out.

People have seen objects on an ocean all their lives and just never did the math. And it's not refraction every time. No, they are actually seeing something that should be beyond the curve.

This is something that is very apparent since people have been able to buy quality optics and are, now, checking it, photographing it and recording video.

Since Google and YouTube controllers have increased the power of their algorithms.... these pictures and videos are harder and harder to find. I know this because I have been entertained by this debate for a while and I used to be able to access arguments from both sides quite easily.. Not now.

JacksBratt said:

Actually, there are objects that are quite clear, well beyond the distance that they should be able to be seen on the globe... that is.. if the globe is the size that they say it is.

First, they told us you could see it from a plane... Just look... Then.. they said you need to be much higher than a commercial air liner... But, they sent up balloons with real cameras, not fish eye lenses... and they still could not see it.

Then, Neil DeGrass Tyson said that we cannot go high enough to see the curve. He also said that it is pear shaped while NASA pictures show a nice sphere.

There is a lot of goal post moving and ambiguity on this subject... when it comes to how far up we should be before we can see the curve...

There is, however, a truth of the rate at which it curves.. and... things are seen that should be hidden.

We do see too far and "refraction" as an excuse, is getting worn out.

People have seen objects on an ocean all their lives and just never did the math. And it's not refraction every time. No, they are actually seeing something that should be beyond the curve.

This is something that is very apparent since people have been able to buy quality optics and are, now, checking it, photographing it and recording video.

Since Google and YouTube controllers have increased the power of their algorithms.... these pictures and videos are harder and harder to find. I know this because I have been entertained by this debate for a while and I used to be able to access arguments from both sides quite easily.. Not now.

Click to expand...

I showed you a video of a guy measuring weights at different latitudes to show that the earth is a spinning globe...an idea that you yourself said you argued should be observable if the earth is as we say it is.

If you won't even accept evidence that you previously agreed indicated a globe earth, what is the point in discussing the topic with you?

JacksBratt said:

I have, however, listened to expert sharp shooters from Canadian and US military talking about the factors that effect these incredible long range feats....

Guess what... out of at least 10 variables... not one was "Coriolis".

Click to expand...

Coriolis is not a significant factor in shooting

It does, however, affect the rotation of large storms (i.e. hurricanes and typhoons) ...

JacksBratt said:

OK, but, thought that the videos may present enough biblical study for you to see it..

Here are 240, around that many anyway.

Over 200 Bible scriptures say the earth is FLAT! #FlatEarthDoctrine

Click to expand...

Not one verse in the Bible says that the Earth is flat ...

JacksBratt said:

Guess what... out of at least 10 variables... not one was "Coriolis".

Click to expand...

Guess again.

and again.

"Each rifle a sniper uses has unique characteristics that are compounded by the ammunition and many, many exterior factors. There is wind. There is humidity. There is the spin of the Earth."

JacksBratt said:

Thank you for that "wiki" quote. However, I can go in and edit any wiki site... It's not really a valid place to get support for an argument.

Click to expand...

There are other sites that provide the same information, e.g. Britannica.

I have, however, listened to expert sharp shooters from Canadian and US military talking about the factors that effect these incredible long range feats....

Guess what... out of at least 10 variables... not one was "Coriolis".

Click to expand...

It may not be necessary for sharpshooting, but it was certainly necessary for naval gunnery - here's an old naval range deflection table:



Here's a full explanation: Coriolis Force.

JacksBratt said:

Actually, there are objects that are quite clear, well beyond the distance that they should be able to be seen on the globe... that is.. if the globe is the size that they say it is.

Click to expand...

Show me one then.

JacksBratt said:

If there was no evidence then the idea should die out. Governments and other organizations do not waste their time on things, unless they are a threat.

The problem is, the FE people are presenting things that are not easily debated. Many things about the globe... are just believed only because that is what we have been taught since our earliest thoughts and observations.

Take some time and look at them. Too many people are laughing and taunting without actually thinking.

Remember, all FE'ers started at the same point.. in a state of disbelief.

Click to expand...

Please. People in government support homeopathy too, doesn't mean they are right. And plenty of people hold tight to things that have no evidence - they may even believe more intensely when they are shown that their reasons for belief are wrong.

Clizby WampusCat said:

I am not sure what you are asking. The oceans stay in place because they are spinning at the same rate as the planet and gravity holds them in place.

Click to expand...

But there's a bulge of land at the centre due to pressures exerted by centrifugal force. Also, gravity doesn't stick things in place, water is free to move around the ball, like an object on a string tied to a central hub. So the natural pull on the water will be towards the equator from either hemisphere, will it not?

Clizby WampusCat said:

Not quite. Newtonian physics works great at relatively slow speeds, it doe snot at high speeds or subatomic.

Click to expand...

Ah ok. So 1,000 mph Newton, 66,600 mph still Newton, 600,000 mph still Newton, or Einstein now? Oh, gravity in atomic theory - do tell.

Clizby WampusCat said:

There are seals that have been tested on earth to perform in the environment of space. Why don't you think we have seals that can seal in space?

Click to expand...

Because I've listened to interview with an industrial valve expert on the ISS that seals the argument.

Clizby WampusCat said:

All you have to do is show me that 6 of the 7 challenger astronauts are alive. T

Click to expand...

Breaking News!; They’re Alive!!! 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle Crew Safe and Employed

Clizby WampusCat said:

Why? I respond to every idea you post.

Click to expand...

I have a life.

Shrewd Manager said:

But there's a bulge of land at the centre due to pressures exerted by centrifugal force. Also, gravity doesn't stick things in place

Click to expand...

It forces them toward the center of the earth (locally down). The ground prevents the water from going all the way to the center of the earth, so the water sits on top of the ground.

, water is free to move around the ball, like an object on a string tied to a central hub. So the natural pull on the water will be towards the equator from either hemisphere, will it not?

Click to expand...

This is actually a different way of looking at the same question addressed by weighing the mass at different lattitudes. The effect of rotational acceleration at different lattitudes and the equatorial bulge is quite small compared to the overall force of gravity. So there is only a modest displacement toward the equator, which adds to the bulge. So the solid earth has its own bulge, and the ocean on top of it also has a bulge. As the bulge grows, it reaches a radius where the earth's gravity and the centripetal acceleration are in equilibrium.

This is separate from the bulge caused by the tides of the moon, but the principle is similar. While the earth's gravity pulls things toward the center of the earth, the Moon's pulls things toward the center of the moon. When the moon is directly overhead, it's gravity is exactly opposed to Earth's (but it's much smaller since the moon is less massive and further away). This leads to the water rising to meet it, but only high enough that it again reaches a balance.

Breaking News!; They’re Alive!!! 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle Crew Safe and Employed

Click to expand...

Oh, so NASA murdered Ellison Onizuka's brother Claude and replaced him with Ellison. Ordinarily, I'd be skeptical, but that website used numerology to prove everything.

Shrewd Manager said:

Because I've listened to interview with an industrial valve expert on the ISS that seals the argument.

Click to expand...

Do flat earthers use critical thinking skills at all? It was an anonymous person making claims. He admitted that he does not know what type of seals were used on the ISS and then throws out some seals that won't work. Then he claims that seals would be sucked out into the vacuum and that there is no calculations possible known to design seals against a vacuum. This is all nonsense. I am an engineer and seals work on a DP not absolute pressures. If a vacuum is 0 psi and the internal pressure is 14.7 psi (atmospheric pressure) a seal can definitely work with that small of a pressure DP.

As far as temperature, the range of temperatures around the ISS goes from -58F to 150F. We have seals that were tested and performed well at these conditions with an acceptable leak rate. These are expensive seals but the claim without evidence that no seal can do this in space is ludicrous.

Breaking News!; They’re Alive!!! 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle Crew Safe and Employed

Click to expand...

Now I know you are not serious.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Do flat earthers use critical thinking skills at all? It was an anonymous person making claims. He admitted that he does not know what type of seals were used on the ISS and then throws out some seals that won't work. Then he claims that seals would be sucked out into the vacuum and that there is no calculations possible known to design seals against a vacuum. This is all nonsense. I am an engineer and seals work on a DP not absolute pressures. If a vacuum is 0 psi and the internal pressure is 14.7 psi (atmospheric pressure) a seal can definitely work with that small of a pressure DP.

Click to expand...

There's also the fact that if there are no seals that can hold against a vacuum, none of the hundreds of thousands of high vacuum pumps used in labs and industry all around the world would be possible...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

There's also the fact that if there are no seals that can hold against a vacuum, none of the hundreds of thousands of high vacuum pumps used in labs and industry all around the world would be possible...

Click to expand...

I was going to post something similar. The computers we are using today would not be possible without such seals. The manufacture of computer chips requires processes that take place under vacuum.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

There's also the fact that if there are no seals that can hold against a vacuum, none of the hundreds of thousands of high vacuum pumps used in labs and industry all around the world would be possible...

Click to expand...

Or even our home AC units. You need to hold the refrigerant lines under a vacuum to remove any moisture from the system before you charge it with refrigerant. Those seals hold under vacuum and pressure. This is just more flat earth nonsense.

46AND2 said:

I showed you a video of a guy measuring weights at different latitudes to show that the earth is a spinning globe...an idea that you yourself said you argued should be observable if the earth is as we say it is.

If you won't even accept evidence that you previously agreed indicated a globe earth, what is the point in discussing the topic with you?

Click to expand...

Wow.... so quick to judge. If I remember correctly, all I said was that I had mentioned in a thread, in the past, that the globe should give different weights at different latitudes and "someone else" said that the differences were not measurable.

You cannot just take one observation and say that you have proved something. There are other, contradictory observations, that are made over and over, that prove that we see too far....

So, as a person that has not accepted the FE myself... I am still searching.. I have not yet found proof of the FE or of a globe that is the size that they say it is..

I continue to say that something is not right...... with what we are told...

So... don't go claiming victory... you still have many other observations and so called evidences that raise questions....