Guide to the FLAT EARTH

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NNN87

This whole time, binoculars, knowledge of your area and a body of water large enough to make observations at minimum of 8 miles. You will see, curvature is not there, and that's following the official formula.

I have the Pacific Ocean. Is that large enough?
I see boats slip away, from hull to mast, on a regular basis.

Perfect, next time follow a ship, when it ''slips'' away immediately zoom in on it, if possible, or locate it with your binoculars, than come back to me.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I have answered your question

My apologies on the second point but how does it prove his experiment wrong? His experiment confirms the earth does not spin.

You would have to prove my points wrong and not dismiss it simply because you don't agree with it.

If you can prove these points wrong theen I will gladly believe you

Another point is that we are told the sun and Moon are different in size and different distances from earth yet how are they the same diameter when observed from earth?...the chances of that being a coincidence is nearly impossible

a reply to: Duvi0010

simple - relative velocity

there - reffuted

a reply to: Duvi0010

so how does a lunar // solar eclipses work - in the flat earth delusion

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Relative velocity has been impossible to detect or any motion of earth, that is one of Einsteins work concerning the Michaelson Morley experiment, that motion of earth cannot be detected. So a mathematical equation was designed to simply explain away the results without any experimental proof by Einstein him self, its called the Lorenz Transformed. it is nothing but an equation.

Just because you keep calling something a delusion only solidifies your own way of thinking.

Who knows, people have not tested those things on flat surface yet, it is still an ongoing investigation, but just like globe theory any celestial movement will only result in speculation and theory, mathematical equations and all.

Terrestrial surface is direct, it is solid and an excellent reference point to make real observations.
Real observations so far shown that our plane is flat.

a reply to: NNN87

Who knows, people have not tested those things on flat surface yet, it is still an ongoing investigation, but just like globe theory any celestial movement will only result in speculation and theory, mathematical equations and all.

no... its not an ongoing investigation...

See One can only say such ridiculous things like this if they have something to base it on...

such as.. "i don't believe in satellites"... which is also ridiculous

Theres no investigation... on going or otherwise...

We know the earth isn't flat... Period

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NNN87

Who knows, people have not tested those things on flat surface yet, it is still an ongoing investigation, but just like globe theory any celestial movement will only result in speculation and theory, mathematical equations and all.

no... its not an ongoing investigation...

See One can only say such ridiculous things like this if they have something to base it on...

such as.. "i don't believe in satellites"... which is also ridiculous

Theres no investigation... on going or otherwise...

We know the earth isn't flat... Period

It is an ongoing investigation, did you ever even bother to look, or question the things you are told?
yeah, there are a lot of people doing research, you will name them whatever you want, just because it doesn't fit your faith, does not make it a stupid question or issue, if you honestly have no intention of investigating then your opinion of ''no'' has been heard.

But not accepted

originally posted by: NNN87
Who knows, people have not tested those things on flat surface yet,

If the Earth is actually flat, then they have. Whatever the shape, it is the only one on which we can conduct observation and experiment, and all those observations and experiments confirm a sphere.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Duvi0010

simple - relative velocity

there - reffuted

You can't refute this. It may have been travelling at the same supposed speed as the Earth but the moment it is fired its relative velocity should decrease immediately while the Earth keeps moving away from it.

So what is making it stay above the same point on Earth. Not gravity. So what is your other excuse? The atmosphere is pushing it along with the same force as the surface?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Which one, don't just say ''they did'', what experiment?

Hafele–Keating experiment

If the world were flat and not moving with everything in the sky rotating or moving in some way around us, this experiment would have utterly failed.

It didn't

a reply to: eriktheawful

Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.

Velocity relative to what? With respect to the center of the Earth? The moving center of the Earth?

a reply to: MatterOfPerspective


FFS - can anyone actually be that fooking stupid - or is it just an act ?


when the canon ball is sitting in the breech - it will have a velocity equal to both the vannon and the earth

when fired - that velocity does not " disapear " - this is basic physics

thus - it will come straigh back down - unless ANOTHER force acts upon it - like windshear

heres a hint - while on a train , bus , car etc etc - that is travelling at a constant velocity - try tossing a pingpong ball up into the air - it will land back in the same place

thats relative velocity for you

simple science for simple flat earthers

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Aha, so the Coriolis effect is not real then?

heres a hint - while on a train , bus , car etc etc - that is travelling at a constant velocity - try tossing a pingpong ball up into the air - it will land back in the same place

Because the fall duration is too short.

a reply to: MatterOfPerspective

and to what altitude did mr Skellam fire his alledged canon ball ?

hove YOU reporoduced his alledged experiment - or seen it done ????

all you have done is mindlessly accepted the claims in a paphlet from the 1890s - that contains a gish gallop of absurdities - mostly utterly unevidenced -

but i am glad i have at last got you to admit that relative velocity negates the origional argument presented

now you have attempted to change the subject to " what about the coriolis effect "

excellet dishonest evasion

now - assuming that mr Skellams experiment was conducted - for real

now that you have conceeded that relative velocity nagates the origional claim

tell us - what deflection should the coriolis effect generate ??????????????????

for an altitude which you may specify - as you claim that a thrown ball in the confines of a moving vehilcle is " too short "

but hey - at least you accept that the ping pong ball reffutes the origional claim

just a hint - can certain people please check which user name they are logged in as - BEFORE posting

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
just a hint - can certain people please check which user name they are logged in as - BEFORE posting

You noticed that too, eh?

It's happening in the Moon Hoax and Low Earth Orbit threads as well, and one of the people here was also in a heath section under another name peddling snake oil, they used the exact phrases.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

The relative velocity claims contradict the Coriolis effect claims.

en.wikipedia.org...

As the Earth turns around its axis, everything attached to it turns with it (imperceptibly to our senses). An object that is moving without being dragged along with this rotation travels in a straight motion over the turning Earth. From our rotating perspective on the planet, its direction of motion changes as it moves, bending in the opposite direction to our actual motion.

According to this source, objects that are not attached to Earth move independant without being dragged along with rotation which directly contradicts your claim about relative velocity keeping things in sync with the rotation.

but hey - at least you accept that the ping pong ball reffutes the origional claim

Refutes what claim. I'am showing that your science is contradictory.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
just a hint - can certain people please check which user name they are logged in as - BEFORE posting

What is the cause for your insinuations this time cause I don't get it.