Author Topic: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus  (Read 91336 times)

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #60 on: February 03, 2016, 08:33:30 PM »
Ah. OK, joking aside, from what I understand, Flat Earther's think the Flat Earth is accelerating upward at the rate of gravitational acceleration.

It just makes me wonder... what is causing the acceleration? Giant rocket engines on the underside of the flat Earth? What is fuelling the rockets?
The FE Gas Bags :)

So there is an infinite supply then? Good to know! If the FE engines ran out of fuel the acceleration would stop and we'd all fly off into space! ;)
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #61 on: February 03, 2016, 09:06:50 PM »
Can you personally prove the following, that is by measurable or observation experiments?
1) The earth is round

I can observe other planets and moons through a telescope. They're all shaped like globes, so it seems reasonable to suspect that Earth is also.

Quote
2) The earth is spinning

I can take long-exposure photographs of the stars which will show them smearing into circles.

Quote
3) The earth orbits the sun.

I have personally witnessed the planet Venus transit across the front of the Sun at a precisely predicted time. Therefore it is reasonable for me to believe planets orbit stars, not the other way around.
 
Quote
4) The moon orbits the earth.

I have seen the moon rise and set. If the Earth was flat, and the moon wasn't orbiting the Earth, wouldn't it always be visible in the sky?

I have observed the moons of Jupiter through my telescope. They orbit the planet, so why would our moon be different?

Explain to me the mechanics behind your flat Earth's moon. How does it maintain it's position over the Earth which is accelerating "upwards" to create the effect of gravity (see #6)? Why doesn't the Earth plow right through the Moon like a car hitting a mosquito?

Quote
5) Water adheres to a curves surface rotating at 1,000 mph

For the same reason my butt is adhering to my chair... gravity.

Quote
6) Gravity exists

How else do you explain the downward force that holds things down and causes apples to fall from trees?

I'm assuming you believe the "flat Earth" is accelerating upwards and that creates the effect of gravity. But like I mentioned in another post, that only makes me wonder what is causing the Earth to accelerate?

Quote
7) A person doesn't feel the change in rotational speed as he moves from the equator to the north pole where the rotation velocity goes from 1,000 mph to 0 mph.

I may be wrong, but I believe it's because the change from one location to the other is gradual (unless you are able to teleport between the two). Your personal speed is always relative to the surface of the Earth at your location. It's like a train... if you are on the train and it slowly accelerates from 0mph to 65mph you don't notice the change in speed as much as you would if you tried to jump onto a fast moving train.

Now it's your turn to prove to me that you aren't just a troll. Prove the Earth is flat, and answer the questions that the other members have asked you. I'll give you until the end of the day on Friday, and then I will decide whether to ban you or not.

Good luck.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline Dalhousie

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 614
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #62 on: February 03, 2016, 11:11:41 PM »
I wonder how flat earthers deal with time zones and two celestial poles?

Offline Al Johnston

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #63 on: February 04, 2016, 05:46:49 AM »
Ah. OK, joking aside, from what I understand, Flat Earther's think the Flat Earth is accelerating upward at the rate of gravitational acceleration. Which makes sense, at least compared to other Flat Earther  claims, except . . . correct me if I am wrong, but does not the force of gravity vary by region (slightly, but significantly in the statistical sense). If it was caused by the Earth accelerating upward, would it not be the exact same anywhere on the the planet?
...
I know. I'm just asking if the world was a pancake accelerating upward (like the floor of a rocket capsule accelerating upward) would it not be the same in all places?
I guess if it was wobbling at the same time there would be some variation....
Imagine if the Earth flipped over!

I'm somewhat surprised this hasn't happened yet: every meteoroid will hit at a faster relative speed than the one before, and kinetic energy increases by the square of velocity...
"Cheer up!" they said. "It could be worse!" they said.
So I did.
And it was.

Offline tradosaurus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • BANNED
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #64 on: February 04, 2016, 08:23:09 AM »
Can you personally prove the following, that is by measurable or observation experiments?
1) The earth is round
I can observe other planets and moons through a telescope. They're all shaped like globes, so it seems reasonable to suspect that Earth is also.
Quote
2) The earth is spinning
I can take long-exposure photographs of the stars which will show them smearing into circles.
Quote
3) The earth orbits the sun.
I have personally witnessed the planet Venus transit across the front of the Sun at a precisely predicted time. Therefore it is reasonable for me to believe planets orbit stars, not the other way around.
Quote
4) The moon orbits the earth.
I have seen the moon rise and set. If the Earth was flat, and the moon wasn't orbiting the Earth, wouldn't it always be visible in the sky?
I have observed the moons of Jupiter through my telescope. They orbit the planet, so why would our moon be different?
Explain to me the mechanics behind your flat Earth's moon. How does it maintain it's position over the Earth which is accelerating "upwards" to create the effect of gravity (see #6)? Why doesn't the Earth plow right through the Moon like a car hitting a mosquito?
Quote
5) Water adheres to a curves surface rotating at 1,000 mph
For the same reason my butt is adhering to my chair... gravity.
Quote
6) Gravity exists
How else do you explain the downward force that holds things down and causes apples to fall from trees?
I'm assuming you believe the "flat Earth" is accelerating upwards and that creates the effect of gravity. But like I mentioned in another post, that only makes me wonder what is causing the Earth to accelerate?

Quote
7) A person doesn't feel the change in rotational speed as he moves from the equator to the north pole where the rotation velocity goes from 1,000 mph to 0 mph.
I may be wrong, but I believe it's because the change from one location to the other is gradual (unless you are able to teleport between the two). Your personal speed is always relative to the surface of the Earth at your location. It's like a train... if you are on the train and it slowly accelerates from 0mph to 65mph you don't notice the change in speed as much as you would if you tried to jump onto a fast moving train.
Now it's your turn to prove to me that you aren't just a troll. Prove the Earth is flat, and answer the questions that the other members have asked you. I'll give you until the end of the day on Friday, and then I will decide whether to ban you or not.
Good luck.

Oooooo, the threat of being banned.   ;)

The reasons you gave for a globe earth universe is by faith not by facts.  That was the point I was trying to make.

1. Other planets being round could easily mean you are looking at a dinner plate instead of a sphere.  However even if other planets were spheres that doesn't dictate the earth is one.  There is no way to test your theory.
2.  So you see stars rotate around a center point (which actually proves an earth centered universe) and you conclude the earth is spinning?  That takes a lot of faith. 
3. Venus transiting in front of the sun?  I hope you weren't blinded.   ;)  Again you are witnessing movement and concluding that the earth is orbiting the sun when it is just as viable to conclude that everything else is orbiting the earth.
4. The flat earth map shows how the moon and sun would appear to "set" beyond the horizon because what is called the vanishing point.  Remember that the sun and moon are only about 4,000 miles in diameter.

5. So how does your gravity know to apply just the right amount of force to keep amounts of water spinning at varying speeds (from 1,000 mph at the equator to 0 at the poles) in place?  Sounds like science fiction to me.  Also no where in nature do you observe water adhering to a spinning curved surface.  Water is always flung off the surface.
6.  The affects of objects falling to earth can be explained by the affect of buoyancy.  What causes an object to float in water?  Gravity?  Can air be considered a medium like water?
7.  Well you are postulating on this with no evidence.  I'm saying the globe earth universe is ludicrous because of the crazy velocities and distances between stars (that can't be measured).
NASA:  Faking space for over 50 years.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #65 on: February 04, 2016, 08:37:32 AM »
Traosaurus, you still have not addressed my question concerning ships approaching, quit stalling and address the question.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline tradosaurus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • BANNED
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #66 on: February 04, 2016, 09:12:58 AM »
Here is something for you globe-earthers to think about.

Can you personally prove the following, that is by measurable or observation experiments?
1) The earth is round

Triangulation and distances. According to the map of the Earth you adhere to, a drive from Sydney to Adelaide (east to west) would be about four times longer than a drive from Sydney to Brisbane (south to north). In reality the drive to Adelaide is about 1.5 times longer. People drive around Australia all the time and so the distances between major cities are well verified. They match a spherical Earth, not a flat Earth.

Quote
2) The earth is spinning

Foucault's Pendulum. Or the Coriolis Effect, which affects even artillery shells.

Or do you think that soldiers would willingly degrade the effectiveness of their weapons in order to maintain the conspiracy?

Quote
3) The earth orbits the sun.

Stellar parallax. The fact that Venus shows phases, which are directly related to its angular size. That's impossible according to your illustration.

Quote
4) The moon orbits the earth.

Everyone on the half of the Earth with the Moon above the horizon sees the Moon showing the same phase and the same size at the same time, and against the same background stars. That's impossible in the scenario provided by your map.

Quote
5) Water adheres to a curves surface rotating at 1,000 mph

Gravity. The same gravity which makes things fall to the ground, and which makes the Earth and Moon orbit each other, and which make the Earth-Moon system orbit the Sun, and which control the motions of the spacecraft we send into orbit around the Earth or off to distant planets. That is, a single concept governs a range of related situations.

Quote
6) Gravity exists

See above.

What causes everything to stay on the Earth in your Flat Earth view? Intelligent Falling? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling)

Quote
7) A person doesn't feel the change in rotational speed as he moves from the equator to the north pole where the rotation velocity goes from 1,000 mph to 0 mph.

Because a person is moving with the surface of the Earth. Exactly the same way, as JayUtah pointed out, your cup of coffee doesn't fly off the back of the table when you let go of it while travelling on a train.

ETA: In the meantime you might like to explain why I can watch the stars in the southern sky move around a point which doesn't contain the Pole Star.
1. Flight patterns disagree with you.

2. Foucault’s pendulums do not uniformly swing in any one direction. Sometimes they rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate and sometimes they rotate far too much. The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other. The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing.
3. Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.
4. Time-lapse photography shows the Moon itself turns clockwise like a wheel as it circles over and around the Earth. You can find pictures of the Moon at 360 degrees of various inclination from all over the Earth simply depending on where and when the picture was taken.

 Did you also know that the moon and the sun are the same size in the sky but we are TOLD that the sun is really far enough away that it just so happens it appears to be the same size as the moon?  lol
5.  The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
 
6.   If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth, it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.  How does gravity affect an objects ability to sink or float in water?
7. A spinning object will create a force called centrifugal force.  You feel this force if you have been on a merry go round.  The faster it spun the harder it was to hang on.  How does this magical gravity hold everything on a sphere (globe earth) where the speed is not constant depending upon your location?  In fact I should weigh the least at the equator as that is the max velocity I would experience on a rotating globe earth. 

The above explanations are why I keep stating that the globe earth is a religion based on faith and not observational facts.  We see one thing but are TOLD to believe another.
NASA:  Faking space for over 50 years.

Offline Apollo 957

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #67 on: February 04, 2016, 09:35:59 AM »
Trad, are you familiar with Sputnik? The first Russian satellite, in fact the first man-made satellite ever?

Do you disbelieve it? Think that was some form of hoax?

"Flight patterns disagree with you. "

They're lines drawn on a map. Are you going to give us a clue as to what you think they prove?
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 09:37:32 AM by Apollo 957 »

Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #68 on: February 04, 2016, 09:41:28 AM »
1. Your graphic for flight patterns is deceptive.  It chooses airlines and flights that connect in the US for hub or aircraft reasons (an aircraft with less range and/or two engines will not make a direct Australia to South America flight) when there ARE direct connecting flights.

2. Prove it.

3. Wrong.  Parallax IS seen with closer stars.  The claim that it is not is a lie.

4. The apparent rotation you describe is called field rotation.  It is predictable based on the observers location and time of viewing using data from a ROUND earth.  It is caused because the observer is on a round surface that is rotating changing their point of view.  Yet more proof of a round Earth.

5. Water is level AND curved.  Level on a sphere denotes being at the same altitude or the same distance from the center.  Common sense would indicate that on a flat plane objects at distance would just decrease in size until not visible anymore.  What is seen in reality is they disappear over the horizon from the bottom up.

6. Gravity is based on mass.  Objects with less mass feel a lesser force known as weight.  One would think a self-described engineer would know that.

7. You do weigh the least on the equator.  Centrifugal force amounts to an opposing force of about 0.23 percent of gravity.

If the Earth was flat then it should be simple to come up with an accurate flat map with no distortion. Why then do flatties prefer to use the azimuth equidistant PROJECTION from a globe which has enormous distortion in the Southern hemisphere?  or do you really think Australia is bigger than the US and nobody noticed?   ::)
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
 -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #69 on: February 04, 2016, 09:54:01 AM »

The reasons you gave for a globe earth universe is by faith not by facts.  That was the point I was trying to make.

No, that's the claim you are making. You haven't come close to showing it. Everyone here on this forum has personal experiences and has witnessed experiments that favor a round world.

1. Other planets being round could easily mean you are looking at a dinner plate instead of a sphere.  However even if other planets were spheres that doesn't dictate the earth is one.  There is no way to test your theory.


Liberal Arts major here.

The planets shadow like a sphere. I realize you don't have the experience in illustrating rounded objects, whether in charcoal or paint or whatever, but the way the self-shadow falls (as well as the way the light shades) is specific to a sphere and unmistakeable.

I've got a little 2" telescope that is a replica (using better glass) of what Galileo was using. I've looked at Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and can (one would hope!) see the "Galilean Satellites"; the four biggest/brightest moons of Jupiter. Except for the latter four (which are too darn small to be anything more than specks of light for me) not a single one is a dinner plate. They range from crescent to near-circle, AND THEY CHANGE over the months.

2.  So you see stars rotate around a center point (which actually proves an earth centered universe) and you conclude the earth is spinning?  That takes a lot of faith.

What? If I sit in a swivel chair and put my feet up, I can make it look like the whole world is spinning around me. I'm pretty sure, though, that it is just me.


3. Venus transiting in front of the sun?  I hope you weren't blinded.   ;)  Again you are witnessing movement and concluding that the earth is orbiting the sun when it is just as viable to conclude that everything else is orbiting the earth.

True, but the order becomes important. If Venus can pass in front of the Sun, then Venus needs to be closer to Earth than the Sun in your model as well. The Aristotalians did figure that out, though; the usual geocentric model has the Sun appearing in the middle, with "inner planets" (Mercury, Venus, and they counted the Moon as well) on one side and Outer Plantets (Jupiter et al...although the list was shorter then) on the other side.


4. The flat earth map shows how the moon and sun would appear to "set" beyond the horizon because what is called the vanishing point.  Remember that the sun and moon are only about 4,000 miles in diameter.

Do I have to keep harping on the Liberal Arts thing? Not just drew a web comic for a while (poorly, but what do you want) but also have physically built scenery for the stage that incorporates false perspective.

You are enlisting an effect that is your own worst enemy here. The railroad tracks you show SHRINK IN SIZE until they are an infinitesimal point (which is not necessarily at the horizon, mind you; there's nothing magical about the horizon line. If you extend the railroad tracks into the air then their vanishing point is there).

And I've never seen the Sun change size (or the Moon, even, and that's a LOT closer in any model than the Sun is).


5. So how does your gravity know to apply just the right amount of force to keep amounts of water spinning at varying speeds (from 1,000 mph at the equator to 0 at the poles) in place?  Sounds like science fiction to me.  Also no where in nature do you observe water adhering to a spinning curved surface.  Water is always flung off the surface.

What?

This is like saying how does a sidewalk know how to provide enough support for a small dog and for a fully loaded shopping cart. It doesn't. It pulls hard enough so the difference doesn't matter.

And velocity doesn't matter. Not one bit, not to anyone. If I'm on a transoceanic flight, I don't have to work any harder to walk back to my seat as it was to walk rearwards to the bathrooms. I can sip coffee or even pour creamer without trying to compensate for the hundreds of KPH the airplane is moving.

Acceleration matters.



6.  The affects of objects falling to earth can be explained by the affect of buoyancy.  What causes an object to float in water?  Gravity?  Can air be considered a medium like water?
7.  Well you are postulating on this with no evidence.  I'm saying the globe earth universe is ludicrous because of the crazy velocities and distances between stars (that can't be measured).

Buoyancy. I'm going to have to think about this one! It's so nonsensical on the face of it that it might actually come around and start making sense from the other side.

Incidentally, you CAN measure the distance to stars. Takes a sharp eye but was done...1800's I think it was, not going to look it up...with really primitive equipment. In fact, I think I visited a place where it was done (Greenwich).

And how it is done? Again, ask an artist. Parallax is akin to perspective.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1273
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #70 on: February 04, 2016, 10:27:10 AM »
1. Flight patterns disagree with you.

No, those maps disagree with me. And what those maps have to do with anything I don't know.

All I need to do is Google "Sydney to Santiago" to find a flight duration of 12 hours 30 minutes. When I Google "Sydney to Los Angeles" I get a flight duration of 13 hours 55 minutes. Yet according to that map of yours a flight from Sydney to Santiago passes through Los Angeles. How can a flight of twice the distance according your map take less time?

And please address the issue of travel times in Australia. The map on the right shows an Australia which simply doesn't accord with travel distances. You might be able to get away with distortions like that with fellow Americans, but not with people who travel around Australia.

Quote
2. Foucault’s pendulums do not uniformly swing in any one direction. Sometimes they rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate and sometimes they rotate far too much. The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other. The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing.

I'm sorry, I think you're fibbing about the precession of the pendulums, and I think you're quibbling about the set-ups. Pendulums in the one hemisphere all precess in the same direction. Pendulums on the Equator don't precess. And a pendulum set up at the South Pole precessed 360 degrees in one day, exactly as predicted.

And please address the issue of the Coriolis Force.

Quote
3. Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.

Stellar parallax was observed in the 19th century by astronomers with Earth-based instruments considerably more sensitive than those available to Mr Brahe, and it's been measured with higher levels of accuracy by the Hipparcos satellite since 1989. The issue is simply that stars are a very long way away, even compared with the 300-odd million kilometre diameter of the Earth's orbit.

And please address the issue of the phases of Venus.

Quote
4. Time-lapse photography shows the Moon itself turns clockwise like a wheel as it circles over and around the Earth. You can find pictures of the Moon at 360 degrees of various inclination from all over the Earth simply depending on where and when the picture was taken.

Please provide a link to this alleged time-lapse photography of the Moon turning like a wheel.

And please address the issue that everyone on the half of the Earth with the Moon above the horizon sees the Moon showing the same phase and the same size at the same time, and against the same background stars.

Quote
Did you also know that the moon and the sun are the same size in the sky but we are TOLD that the sun is really far enough away that it just so happens it appears to be the same size as the moon?  lol

Yes, I did know that. I've observed both the Moon and the Sun. As for the fact that they have the same angular size, yes, it's an amazing coincidence. And that's all.

Quote
5.  The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
 

Lovely pictures. But yes, the surface of the Earth is curved, which is why the hulls of sailing ships disappeared before their masts did. When you have a globe of nearly 13,000 kilometres in diameter, even in those pictures you can't easily see the curvature of the apparently flat surface. But all points of the surface of the ocean are equidistant from the Earth's centre of gravity.

Quote
6.   If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth, it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.

Why?

Quote
How does gravity affect an objects ability to sink or float in water?

It doesn't. Objects float or sink due to buoyancy, which is the relative density of the water and the object placed in the water. If the object's density is greater than water, then gravity determines which direction the object goes (that is, down).

And please explain what keeps us on the ground according to Flat-Earthism? Is it Intelligent Falling?

Quote
7. A spinning object will create a force called centrifugal force.  You feel this force if you have been on a merry go round.  The faster it spun the harder it was to hang on.  How does this magical gravity hold everything on a sphere (globe earth) where the speed is not constant depending upon your location?

Because the force of gravity is much stronger than the centrifugal force generated by an object spinning at the rate of 1 revolution per day.

Quote
In fact I should weigh the least at the equator as that is the max velocity I would experience on a rotating globe earth. 

And you do! It's just that the weight reduction is about 0.5% - measurable but not enough to see you thrown off the Earth at the Equator.

And please address why your cup of coffee on the train doesn't slide off the table when you let go of it.

Quote
The above explanations are why I keep stating that the globe earth is a religion based on faith and not observational facts.  We see one thing but are TOLD to believe another.

Yeah, well until you address the points I made here and the ones you avoided addressing in the post of mine you were responding to, I'll work on the basis that you're the one with a religious obsession.

So here's a brief summary:
- flight durations;
- shape of Australia;
- Coriolis Force;
- Observed stellar parallax;
- Phases of Venus;
- Time-lapse photography of rotating Moon;
- Observations of Moon;
- Disappearing ships;
- Fish swimming in the ocean;
- What keeps things stuck to Flat Earth; and
- Non-moving cups of coffee.

And, for bonus points, please explain the physics of the Sun according to FE physics.

Thank you.

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #71 on: February 04, 2016, 10:44:55 AM »
1. Flight patterns disagree with you.

Baloney. Sydney and Perth are 1800 nmi apart. According to the flat earth model they are 4500 nmi apart. Scheduled flights between the two cities would have to fly at Mach 2.2 to arrive on time.

https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=SYD;t=PER;d=2016-02-20;r=2016-02-24;tt=o;s=0


Quote
2. Foucault’s pendulums ... The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing.

This is a nonsensical assertion without evidence. The direction of rotation always depends on the hemisphere and the rate of rotation depends on the latitude. Without exception.

Quote
3. Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time

In Tycho's time he was lucky to be able to measure stellar positions within a minute of arc, let alone the fractions of a second of arc required to measure parallax. His instruments would have to be able to measure 100 times more finely to detect the parallax.


Quote
In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars,

That's because parallax isn't measured in inches. The symbol for the inch (") is also the symbol for seconds of arc. All of your astronomy knowledge obviously comes from the flat earth scriptures.


Quote
4. Time-lapse photography shows the Moon itself turns clockwise like a wheel as it circles over and around the Earth. You can find pictures of the Moon at 360 degrees of various inclination from all over the Earth simply depending on where and when the picture was taken.

And yet everybody everywhere always sees the same face of the Moon. And the same phase. If it's circling over your flat earth then people on opposite sides of the Moon should see opposite sides of the Moon and the phase should be different for each observer.


Quote
Did you also know that the moon and the sun are the same size in the sky but we are TOLD that the sun is really far enough away that it just so happens it appears to be the same size as the moon?  lol

No, they're not the same size. Here's a pic of an annular eclipse:




Quote
5.  The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here.

Once again you demonstrate your complete of understanding of inertia and the vectors and magnitudes of the forces involved. The tilt of the earth does not affect anything except the amount of sunshine different locations will receive. The wobble takes 26,000 years to complete one revolution. "Hurdling" through a vacuum imparts no forces on the Earth whatsoever.


Quote
6.   If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth,

Gravity doesn't "curve" anything. Gravity pulls down. Pull water down and of course it will be level.


Quote
it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.

"forcefully held water"??? Bwahaha! I'd love to see your math for that!

Quote
  How does gravity affect an objects ability to sink or float in water?

An object will neither sink nor float if there isn't a downward force applied to the object and to the medium.


Quote
7. A spinning object will create a force called centrifugal force.  You feel this force if you have been on a merry go round.  The faster it spun the harder it was to hang on.

A merry-go-round is a great example of the minuscule centrifugal force of the rotating earth. I asked you earlier to tell us how much centrifugal acceleration we experience after you claimed water should be flung off of the earth because it spins at 1000 mph but you ignored it. So now's your chance to dazzle us by comparing the centrifugal force of the rotating earth to a merry-go-round.

But of course you can't show us your math because the only math you know is "curvature = 8 inches · mile²".

The answer is the centrifugal acceleration at the equator is equal to the centrifugal acceleration felt at the edge of a 2 meter diameter merry-go-round that completes one revolution every 34 seconds. That is equal to accelerating your car from 0 to 30 mph in the time span of 6 minutes 36 seconds. And you think you should be able to feel that? And that it is enough acceleration to fling water out into space?

Offline DonQuixote

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 33
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #72 on: February 04, 2016, 11:21:56 AM »
Quote from: Peter B
And, for bonus points, please explain the physics of the Sun according to FE physics.

Ultimately, this is where Flat Earth theory fails the hardest. They can't even agree on any self-consistent model. If they want to approach reality this solipsistically, that's no skin off my back. They're free to introduce as many pseudoforces into their model as they need to make it fit their frame of reference, but they should at least make sure it actually fits their observations, has internal consistency, and acknowledge that frames of reference can change.

And above all, they should stop insisting that any evidence that contradicts their "model" is of necessity faked. Science changes its models to match observations. If FEs want to be taken even remotely seriously, they should do the same.

I've watched people in this thread calmly and rationally answer every challenge presented against the earth being round, sometimes repeatedly, just to have Trad hand-wave them away; so if he wants to cling to his belief that the world is flat, he's free to do so as far as I'm concerned, but observations show that, at best, that could only be considered to be "locally," personally true – just not objectively.
You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can not make him think.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #73 on: February 04, 2016, 11:38:55 AM »
Quote from: Peter B
And, for bonus points, please explain the physics of the Sun according to FE physics.

Ultimately, this is where Flat Earth theory fails the hardest. They can't even agree on any self-consistent model. If they want to approach reality this solipsistically, that's no skin off my back. They're free to introduce as many pseudoforces into their model as they need to make it fit their frame of reference, but they should at least make sure it actually fits their observations, has internal consistency, and acknowledge that frames of reference can change.

And above all, they should stop insisting that any evidence that contradicts their "model" is of necessity faked. Science changes its models to match observations. If FEs want to be taken even remotely seriously, they should do the same.

I've watched people in this thread calmly and rationally answer every challenge presented against the earth being round, sometimes repeatedly, just to have Trad hand-wave them away; so if he wants to cling to his belief that the world is flat, he's free to do so as far as I'm concerned, but observations show that, at best, that could only be considered to be "locally," personally true – just not objectively.
Edited to clarify who the adjective was directed.
tradosaurus is a Troll!
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 11:59:11 AM by bknight »
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline DonQuixote

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 33
Re: A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus
« Reply #74 on: February 04, 2016, 11:50:25 AM »
I'm in no way trolling here, bknight, merely stating that if FEs want to believe in a flat earth, that has zero impact on me personally(well, other than me questioning their mental faculties), but they should have the courage to label it as such. I can believe that a vast, cosmic raccoon created the cosmos, but it doesn't make it true.
You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can not make him think.