I am in utter disbelief that this 'Flat-Earth' nonsense has gained some attention

Flat earth?

Nope.

What more need be said? Only willful ignorance would deny several centuries of evidence of "roundness".

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: theMediator

ok - you draw a curved horizon on bobs pic - then extrapolate it

remember - your curved horizon must be noticable

Why would I draw a CURVED horizon that's NOTICEABLE when I clearly know from logic and "science" that there wouldn't be a curve at that height/distance of view.



There, that's the horizon. In paint I use the LINE to draw it.
Who would of thought? :p

It's ok to be wrong sometimes, it's a sign of great wisdom.

a reply to: theMediator

bob - and other flat earthers argue that a curved horizon SHOULD be visibile [ on an oblate speroid earth ] - thats how retarded the FE argument is - they claim flat horizon = flat earth

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
It takes 7 hours roughly to fly from NYC to Europe but almost 14 hours to fly from South Africa to Australia??

Nah it takes 10 hours according to : www.southafrica.to...

Still, if you want a flight path that screams flat earth check out this link :
balipedia.com...

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: theMediator

bob - and other flat earthers argue that a curved horizon SHOULD be visibile - thats how retarded the FE argument is

Well I'm not "other flat earthers", I don't deal with every illogical claims did in the name of ridiculizing the theory.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Sorry sir I'm more than a bit obtuse at the moment but NY to Madrid 5785km, time 7:20h. cape town to Sidney 11003km

If 5785km = 7:20h, 11003km =x, x =440*11003/5785= 836min or 13.9h

in any case if you agree with me or not the line in FE map from south Africa to Australia is almost 3 times the one from NY to Europe, so the flight must be 21h and no 13?

After typing this i realize you must agree with me but ill hit reply as it drained me to type these 4 lines

a reply to: theMediator

when are you going to wise up and adnit that FE claims are bollox ?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: theMediator
when are you going to wise up and adnit that FE claims are bollox ?

Knowing a great deal on psychology, I know that you are saying that sentence because you don't want to admit that your arguments don't hold up and now you reversed your stance back to me.

I'm also know enough to not respond directly to your anwser as I already know where this is going and you ain't taking me there. :p

a reply to: theMediator

all my arguments stack up - other peoples delusions are irrelevant .

the earth IS an oblate sphere - get over it

as for your alledged qualifications in psychology

your pathetic ` poison the well ` attack on NASA put that in perspective

the ancient greeks [ 200 BCE ] calculated the diameter of the earth - with a 20% error

columbus used a perfect sphere calculation [ that was also concluded an erroneous diameter ] as the basis of his attempt to sail from the iberian peninsula to china

by the 20th century - the error in the earths diameter was < 1%

the space age gave us the ability to detect the difference between polar and equitorial diameters

all the FE claims give us is bollox

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: theMediator
all my arguments stack up - other peoples delusions are irrelevant .

The arguments you've shown me don't stack up as I easily debunked 3 out of 4 of em and I've openly agreed to your only good one.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the earth IS an oblate sphere - get over it

"Get over it" , you're the one who's getting all emotional about it.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the ancient greeks [ 200 BCE ] calculated the diameter of the earth - with a 20% error

All of which could also be easily transposable in flat earth calculations but I guess you'd rather cherry pick the conclusions.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
columbus used a perfect sphere calculation [ that was also concluded an erroneous diameter ] as the basis of his attempt to sail from the iberian peninsula to china

Columbus didn't know s***. He never discovered anything and all his calculations we're wrong. He is also to blame for the killings of thousands of Native Americans so don't be bringing that jerk as if it was a good argument.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
all the FE claims give us is bollox

You don't know anything about the flat earth theory otherwise you would have better arguments instead of loosing your patience.

I have seen a lot of theories and I'm open to the idea that maybe the earth is flat.
Maybe your ego can get over it.

a reply to: theMediator

So what FE claim have you got that makes Earth being a globe (ish) wrong?

BTW it only takes just over 6 hours to fly from the UK to New York.

EDIT I want someone to convince me the Earth is flat.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: amazing

This is what came up when I typed in "the edge of the Earth"

LOL Must be true then.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: theMediator
So what FE claim have you got that makes Earth being a globe (ish) wrong?

-I've never seen a bent horizon from my own eyes and I've travelled a lot in planes and also seen the view from the cockpit.
-Many flight paths don't seem to make much sense on a sphere earth while make more sense on a flat earth.
-Planes in the southern hemisphere close their GPS's soon after take-off/over the ocean and turn it back on when arriving back to the land.
-Admiral Byrd in the 50's flyed over to Antarctica, came back said there was a contient beyond the ice, rich with resources about as big as the USA. They went back there and soon signed treaties, closed it off the corporations and the general population. The laws to protect this empty land are quite intence too. All of this sounds fishy, no doubt about it but maybe not a direct argument for the FE theory.
-I believe that the Electrical Universe Theory is much better than anything having to do with gravity. So everything having to do with gravity doesn't sound like good arguments of a spherical earth. Like the idea that tides are cause by the gravity of the moon yet lakes are not affected, that's a totally wrong theory.
-(This one is more of an opinion)We can see it by now, especially on ATS, that we are all on a need to know basis. Gravity models and spherical earth come from people in bed with secret societies. Their oats are much more important than informing the rest of society. How far could they lie to keep secrets is unknown.
-NASA can't be trusted. From the moon landing till today, who knows what's real and what's CGI anymore? I've never been in space and no one who isn't a Mason, or at least in league with, goes there anyway. Mason are not evil, but they are known to be highly trustworthy but only when it comes to their kind. They will lie in order to keep secrets of their group, it's asked of them and no one makes it far without agreeing to secrecy.
-Usually, physics that are true to the macro universe are also true in the micro universe. If I dip a tennis ball in water and then I make it spin, the water will obviously drip towards the motion of the spin. Have we ever even done once, an experience with gravity that actually reacts the same way earth does? Not once. Then again, our closed environement with an atmosphere could be the cause!

But like I said,

-Moon Waxing
-Polaris unviewable from the southern hemisphere
-The Coriolis effect

Those are damn good arguments for a spherical earth, they are actually the best I've found untill now. The best counter argument for the moon I've heard is that it would be a hologram but that does seem far-fetched...although, what do we really know for sure about this universe?

I have a feeling that this existence is some sort of virtual reality and it makes sense because, we will surely be able to create sentient programs within a virtual world that will have no idea that their existence is "virtual" before we can explain our own existence. Maybe the beings in that virtual world could replicate another new reality before they too can explain their origins...

originally posted by: TerryDon79
BTW it only takes just over 6 hours to fly from the UK to New York.

I think that from both models, flight times in the northern hemisphere don't change.

a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me

It has been a cleaver plot to help you clean-out your Facebook "friends" and Twitter feeds that believe in this nonsense.

I can't bring myself to wade through this.

Are there actually people on this thread defending the flat earth theory?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

If you believe this man destroyed Neil Degrasse Tyson...



That is the funniest thing I ever saw.

And I have seen some funny things on ATS over the years.

Daft question, but if Polaris is (almost) over head at the North Pole, and the Earth is flat, then, unless Polaris is only a few miles above the North Pole, it should be (nearly) overhead everywhere?

Flatearthers?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
EDIT I want someone to convince me the Earth is flat.

Other than going into space, we can exclude that possibility, I can think of 3 other ideas to prove if the earth is flat or not.
-If we built a tower tall enough with a cube at the top, from afar, the cube should be looking more and more like a rectangle.
-If someone would be able to circle the Antarctic by boat, the distance traveled on a flat earth would be 3-4x the lenght. (sadly everything below 60 degrees is closed off unless I'm mistaken)
-If someone could take a plane from Australia to Argentina while passing direclty over the "south pole".

A lot of other tests don't prove one or the other distinctively.
Convinced by any models either requires personal experience or faith. I'm leaning on the sphere idea but I'm really not sure.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
Daft question, but if Polaris is (almost) over head at the North Pole, and the Earth is flat, then, unless Polaris is only a few miles above the North Pole, it should be (nearly) overhead everywhere?

Flatearthers?

That's right. On a fully flat earth, Polaris would need to be 111~ km from the ground at the north pole.

Some theories have the plane bumped enough so that Polaris could be even higher but I calculated with a 100% flat plane.

Edit :
Oh here's a cool video that expalins how Polaris is actually an argument FOR flat earth. Strange indeed.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: TerryDon79
EDIT I want someone to convince me the Earth is flat.

Other than going into space, we can exclude that possibility, I can think of 3 other ideas to prove if the earth is flat or not.
-If we built a tower tall enough with a cube at the top, from afar, the cube should be looking more and more like a rectangle.
-If someone would be able to circle the Antarctic by boat, the distance traveled on a flat earth would be 3-4x the lenght. (sadly everything below 60 degrees is closed off unless I'm mistaken)
-If someone could take a plane from Australia to Argentina while passing direclty over the "south pole".

A lot of other tests don't prove one or the other distinctively.
Convinced by any models either requires personal experience or faith. I'm leaning on the sphere idea but I'm really not sure.

I don't understand why you think a cube would turn into a rectangle?

There have been many people to sail around Antarctica. Google circum navigation Antarctica 2008.

Again, the issues of flying directly over Antarctica have been explained. The temperatures are so low that the fuel could freeze. Plus the freezing of other components.