The Earth is Flat, and you will prove it.

[JacksBratt]

Anytime I call someone whos in a different time zone, the round earth picture comes naturally to mind.
This happens almost every day.

Actually, time zones and circumnavigation fit both flat and globe earth models

 

[durangodawood]

Actually, time zones and circumnavigation fit both flat and globe earth models

Really?
Even if so, the round model springs to mind intuitively, which is the point. So its clearly not just a "scientific curiosity" as sw claims.

 

[The Cadet]

Actually, time zones and circumnavigation fit both flat and globe earth models

...Okay, how?

 

[JacksBratt]

...Okay, how?

As for the time zones, it is day and night somewhere on the flat earth model. The sun and moon, supposedly, travell around the plate shaped flat earth. So, time zones work just like they do on a globe with the sun and moon moving as opposed to the earth spinning.

As for the circumnavigation... you can leave Chili and sail west until you reach Australia. Then continue until you reach Africa then continue until you reach the east coast of South America. Long as you stay on the same latitudinal place, you will sail around the world on a flat earth. It is not proof of a globe.

The edge of the earth is, supposedly, an ice wall on the edge of a plate shaped earth. The North pole is the center of the plate. Antarctica is the edge but is a solid ice cliff or wall all the way around. There is no edge of the earth to sail off of. Supposedly of course.

So, as they are laid out by both models they both work.

 

[The Cadet]

The sun and moon, supposedly, travell around the plate shaped flat earth.

...But how could it ever be night, then? The Sun is above the earth radiating down on it. It could be sunset, but it could never actually be night, because the sun never falls below the plate.

As for the circumnavigation... you can leave Chili and sail west until you reach Australia. Then continue until you reach Africa then continue until you reach the east coast of South America. Long as you stay on the same latitudinal place, you will sail around the world on a flat earth. It is not proof of a globe.

I mean north-south circumnavigation.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface

So, as they are laid out by both models they both work.

Except that absolutely nothing about the flat-earth model makes even the slightest bit of sense and I find it utterly bizarre that I have to explain this to someone who is capable of using the internet and speaking in whole sentences (with above-average grammar, no less!) in the year 2016.

 

[durangodawood]

....The edge of the earth is, supposedly, an ice wall on the edge of a plate shaped earth.....

As for the time zones, it is day and night somewhere on the flat earth model. The sun and moon, supposedly, travell around the plate shaped flat earth. So, time zones work just like they do on a globe with the sun and moon moving as opposed to the earth spinning.

As for the circumnavigation... you can leave Chili and sail west until you reach Australia. Then continue until you reach Africa then continue until you reach the east coast of South America. Long as you stay on the same latitudinal place, you will sail around the world on a flat earth. It is not proof of a globe.

The edge of the earth is, supposedly, an ice wall on the edge of a plate shaped earth. The North pole is the center of the plate. Antarctica is the edge but is a solid ice cliff or wall all the way around. There is no edge of the earth to sail off of. Supposedly of course.

So, as they are laid out by both models they both work.

1. the model is contradicted by observed reality in almost every way.
2. the model, even in the abstract, totally wouldnt work to produce the results we experience.

 

[-57]

I'm from the US. We measure things in feet.
A perfectly flat ruler would extend 1.5 miles
from my toes and the step down due to the
earths curve would be about a foot.

Using one mile (1.6 KM) instead of my foot still measures
out to be a practically flat surface.

What measure would you have me use? Your reality perhaps?

If you marked where you are standing.....then walked in a straight line for 10,000 miles...then turned 90 deg.....walked another 10,000 miles....then turned 90 deg.....and walked another 10,000 miles....you would be back where you began. On a flat earth you would need to turn 4 times instead of 3 times on a globe.

 

[The Cadet]

If you marked where you are standing.....then walked in a straight line for 10,000 miles...then turned 90 deg.....walked another 10,000 miles....then turned 90 deg.....and walked another 10,000 miles....you would be back where you began. On a flat earth you would need to turn 4 times instead of 3 times on a globe.

This is only true at the poles, but it makes a good point. On a flat earth, taking three 90 degree turns at the north pole won't end you back at the north pole. On a globe, it will.

 

[dece870717]

It does look that way, from my flying ship.

looks pretty round to me.

 

[Shemjaza]

As for the time zones, it is day and night somewhere on the flat earth model. The sun and moon, supposedly, travell around the plate shaped flat earth. So, time zones work just like they do on a globe with the sun and moon moving as opposed to the earth spinning.

As for the circumnavigation... you can leave Chili and sail west until you reach Australia. Then continue until you reach Africa then continue until you reach the east coast of South America. Long as you stay on the same latitudinal place, you will sail around the world on a flat earth. It is not proof of a globe.

The edge of the earth is, supposedly, an ice wall on the edge of a plate shaped earth. The North pole is the center of the plate. Antarctica is the edge but is a solid ice cliff or wall all the way around. There is no edge of the earth to sail off of. Supposedly of course.

So, as they are laid out by both models they both work.

There'd be other evidence. Australia would be closer to the USA then it is to Chile as apposed to the real world.

 

[JacksBratt]

...But how could it ever be night, then? The Sun is above the earth radiating down on it. It could be sunset, but it could never actually be night, because the sun never falls below the plate.
I mean north-south circumnavigation.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface

Ok, firstly, I am in no way a flat earther. I am just putting out the fact that both of the situations are possible on the model presented by flat earth theorists. Except the north south circumnavigation, which they will argue, never happens.

They will say that you can fly over the North pole but not the south.

As for the day night thing. There are very good animations of their model on the net. Of course, the sun and moon are both much smaller and much closer.

Except that absolutely nothing about the flat-earth model makes even the slightest bit of sense and I find it utterly bizarre that I have to explain this to someone who is capable of using the internet and speaking in whole sentences (with above-average grammar, no less!) in the year 2016.

Thanks for the compliment, however, they have done their homework. A lot of issues have been explained. They still cannot explain to me the lunar eclipse, satellite TV or geosyncronized satellites, and a few other things that I keep in my pocket for later.

I would still like to see a certified high altitude photograph of the curvature of the earth WITHOUT a fish eye lens camera. There are many amateur high altitude vids and pics with no curve but I would like something more convincing. I don't mean NASA's pics from space, I mean photos of the earth showing the curve with a real big person lens. Not "gopro"

 

[JacksBratt]

1. the model is contradicted by observed reality in almost every way.
2. the model, even in the abstract, totally wouldnt work to produce the results we experience.

Sorry, it's just that I hate it when I start answering posts like this because it sounds like I am arguing for the flat earth camp.

However, the model would work in just as many ways as the globe model does. You just have to start doing some digging and reading. The thing is, in my opinion, you cannot just spout off "lies, lies, lies." about a presented belief until you have listened to their whole explanation. I have, it has very few holes in it. It has holes just not many.

As for your first point. Where and when have you ever seen any evidence for a globe earth for yourself, by your own eyes? What is the source for all of your proof..... NASA, the Military and the Government...... All of questionable integrity and proven to put out propaganda to keep you from knowing what is really the truth.

 

[JacksBratt]

There'd be other evidence. Australia would be closer to the USA then it is to Chile as apposed to the real world.

You are absolutely correct. This was one of my big questions. Then I read stories of log books from sailing ships in the 1800's. They all show, when south of a certain latitude, they were always traveling much slower than their calculations. When traveling east they would be further west than calculated. When traveling west they would be further east. This ruled out currents. Many ships ran aground when they assumed to be well around the horn of Africa only to run aground on it. One or two ships try to circumnavigate Antarctica and after 4 years and many thousands of nautical miles more than it should take, never get back to their original starting point.

Just google them. They are by seasoned, well trained and respected captains. One is Captain Cook. Very strange navigation errors by all and many end up shipwrecked.

Don't shoot the messanger. Like I said, I feel like I'm arguing their cause. So, ask them. Start a thread. And, if you dare, look into it yourself.... don't just point and laugh. Prove there is a globe. But, try to do it with nothing, absolutely nothing from NASA, the military or the governments. Good luck. It's a deep rabbit hole.


Here's a few for you to chew on....You asked......

Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.

From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 10,500 miles, or 143 degrees of longitude away. Factoring in the remaining degrees to 360 makes for a total distance of 26,430 miles around this particular latitude, which is over 1500 miles wider than Earth is supposed to be at the equator, and many more thousands of miles wider than it is supposed to be at such Southern latitudes.

In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.

 

[Shemjaza]

You are absolutely correct. This was one of my big questions. Then I read stories of log books from sailing ships in the 1800's. They all show, when south of a certain latitude, they were always traveling much slower than their calculations. When traveling east they would be further west than calculated. When traveling west they would be further east. This ruled out currents. Many ships ran aground when they assumed to be well around the horn of Africa only to run aground on it. One or two ships try to circumnavigate Antarctica and after 4 years and many thousands of nautical miles more than it should take, never get back to their original starting point.

Just google them. They are by seasoned, well trained and respected captains. One is Captain Cook. Very strange navigation errors by all and many end up shipwrecked.

Don't shoot the messanger. Like I said, I feel like I'm arguing their cause. So, ask them. Start a thread. And, if you dare, look into it yourself.... don't just point and laugh. Prove there is a globe. But, try to do it with nothing, absolutely nothing from NASA, the military or the governments. Good luck. It's a deep rabbit hole.


Here's a few for you to chew on....You asked......

Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.

From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 10,500 miles, or 143 degrees of longitude away. Factoring in the remaining degrees to 360 makes for a total distance of 26,430 miles around this particular latitude, which is over 1500 miles wider than Earth is supposed to be at the equator, and many more thousands of miles wider than it is supposed to be at such Southern latitudes.

In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.

Interesting variations in current speed aside, you'll notice that a flight from Sydney to Santiago isn't twice as long as a flight to Los Angeles.

 

[JacksBratt]

Interesting variations in current speed aside, you'll notice that a flight from Sydney to Santiago isn't twice as long as a flight to Los Angeles.

Interesting, is that a direct flight or a stop over in some more northern destination along the way.

The topic of flights in the southern hemisphere is a huge topic for flat earth believers.

 

[Shemjaza]

Interesting, is that a direct flight or a stop over in some more northern destination along the way.

The topic of flights in the southern hemisphere is a huge topic for flat earth believers.

Yeah, but they don't try very hard to look at flights. Australia to South America is mostly via North America due to the popularity not due to flight time convenience.

There are just not enough of us going to South America, but there are flights if you look for them.

Their next step is just to cry conspiracy, but that feels pretty much like admitting defeat.

 

[durangodawood]

you cannot just spout off "lies, lies, lies." about a presented belief until you have listened to their whole explanation....

What is the source for all of your proof..... NASA, the Military and the Government...... All of questionable integrity and proven to put out propaganda to keep you from knowing what is really the truth.

Basically, attacking the entire scientific community is "spouting lies lies lies" yourself. Not to mention proposing a conspiracy of so vast a scope that it's almost less plausible than flat earth itself.

 

[JacksBratt]

Basically, attacking the entire scientific community is "spouting lies lies lies" yourself. Not to mention proposing a conspiracy of so vast a scope that it's almost less plausible than flat earth itself.

Attacking the entire scientific community? Really?

I don't think it's the "entire" scientific community. Also, attacking is a very strong word....ALL science SHOULD be questioned. Do you not agree? Do you think we should just roll along believing everything we are told because someone wears a white coat and has a few letters after their name?

I think it is important that we question all things presented as fact. IF the FE'rs are correct... all I can say is WOW.

However, they are presenting some very very good arguments and have some very very tough questions to be answered.
People have to be accountable for the statements they make that affect this topic.

Can you answer their questions?

 

[JacksBratt]

Yeah, but they don't try very hard to look at flights. Australia to South America is mostly via North America due to the popularity not due to flight time convenience.

There are just not enough of us going to South America, but there are flights if you look for them.

Their next step is just to cry conspiracy, but that feels pretty much like admitting defeat.

Like I said, I feel like I'm arguing for them. They would say that on a flat earth model the distance from Australia to South America is shorter via North America.......

I think I'll let them fight their battles now as I am not a FE believer.....

Having said that, I do give them their due as far as checking their proposed facts

 

[durangodawood]

Attacking the entire scientific community? Really?

I don't think it's the "entire" scientific community. Also, attacking is a very strong word....ALL science SHOULD be questioned. Do you not agree? Do you think we should just roll along believing everything we are told because someone wears a white coat and has a few letters after their name?

I think it is important that we question all things presented as fact. IF the FE'rs are correct... all I can say is WOW.

However, they are presenting some very very good arguments and have some very very tough questions to be answered.
People have to be accountable for the statements they make that affect this topic.

Can you answer their questions?

You insinuated that the reason almost every single scientist on earth (including the astronomers and geo-scientists) believes in round-earth is because of NASA and govt influencing them to believe in a totally wrong model of the planet. Is that right?