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

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I don't understand why you think a cube would turn into a rectangle?

Because on a sphere, the buildings would bend backwards when seen from afar while on a plane would sink as the line of the horizon shrinks. Don't know if you played RPG games where you travel on a sphere or a flat plane...that should give you an idea on how both "worlds" look while moving around.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
There have been many people to sail around Antarctica. Google circum navigation Antarctica 2008.

Oh thank you for the info, I'll check on that

originally posted by: TerryDon79
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.

That same jet fuel that caused the WTC towers to both fall?
Check out this video of Antarctica.
Never thought it would be that hot in some regions.

originally posted by: theMediator

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

And there it is ladies and gentlemen. it's not weather the earth is flat or round, it matters most who can win the debate.

This whole bundle of nut-jobbery is about debate skills and nothing more. I mean, you would have to be seriously mentally challenged to really believe this stuff.

a reply to: theMediator

So you're talking about perspective when you're talking about the cube/rectangle? The problem with that is the further away you are the less likely you would be able to distinguish the edges of the cube so it would be very hard to see it looking like a rectangle.

I don't understand the connection between the freezing temperature of jet fuel and 911.

As for the actual temps. You do know planes don't fly at ground level? The higher you go the colder it gets. Look up the air temps at cruising altitude over the Sahara during the day and you'll see what I mean.

originally posted by: network dude
I mean, you would have to be seriously mentally challenged to really believe this stuff.

Comming from you, that's the best compliment I've had all day!

originally posted by: TerryDon79
So you're talking about perspective when you're talking about the cube/rectangle? The problem with that is the further away you are the less likely you would be able to distinguish the edges of the cube so it would be very hard to see it looking like a rectangle.

With a telescope, we could see it no problem.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I don't understand the connection between the freezing temperature of jet fuel and 911.

Are people saying the gas would freeze the same people that told us the same jet fuel can melt steel?
Teasing with the idea hehe

originally posted by: TerryDon79
As for the actual temps. You do know planes don't fly at ground level? The higher you go the colder it gets. Look up the air temps at cruising altitude over the Sahara during the day and you'll see what I mean.

I don't know about temperatures above the Antarctic but I'm totally in agreement here.

I've checked a bit on that "circumnavigation Antarctica 2008" on google.
www.yachtpals.com...
I think the number do add up. He would of travelled 16500 miles at about 6.32 miles per hour.
It's hard to verify the claims 100% but I gotta hand it to you
+ 1 for the sphere, now that was a good argument to me.

a reply to: theMediator

Ok. Melting steel idea id rather not go anywhere near as that's off topic and a touchy subject.

Freezing temperatures and ignition and burning temperatures aren't related.

Also, it's not so much about it freezing, when it gets cold enough it turns sludgy and blocks fuel pipes, can't ignite etc.

Imagine a glass of milk with a straw. Suck the milk through the straw. Pretty easy, right?

Imagine same glass and same straw, but the milk has been in the freezer and is like a super thick milkshake. Try sucking it through the straw. Bit harder?

That's the main problem with the temperature thing.

Glad you +1 the spheroid for circum navigation of Antarctica . Many people have done it btw, but that was the most recent I could find with just a quick search.

Flat Earth believers, making No Plane believers, look credible. Well almost.

a reply to: theMediator

Hey you, do you agree with this flat earth model?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have you contemplated making the trip I suggest?

So Google told me this



and I calculated how long are those lines by pixels in that flat earth map, if you normalize those distance to the NY-madrid distance you get

NY-Madrid is 1 in both, Cape town to Sydney is 1.9 in earth and 2.9 in flatearth and Sydney to Santiago is 1.96 earth 3.17 flat earth

Google also says



How come a flight that is 3.17 times as long as one that last 7:20h just takes 12:30 h

Get a watch , make those flights

Here for those who either believe the Earth is flat, or think there is a possibility this video is for you.



Enjoy...

-Many flight paths don't seem to make much sense on a sphere earth while make more sense on a flat earth.

Which are those?

On the other hand, Great circle routes make sense on a sphere but not for a flat surface.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me
If you haven't seen Idiocracy, watch it. It's the only movie I know of that started out as fiction and ended up being a documentary.

It was a documentary at the time, the fact you thought it was fiction..............................

The part o don't get is how someone can even rationalize a flat earth. What happens at the edge?? How would gravity work what was underneath us?? Why does the oceans stay?? And what would happen if you flew past the edge are you in space?? And then why would the sky remain seems like the entire atmosphere would constantly be traveling to the edges. Meaning we would see global weather winds would always travel to the closest edge and hurricanes would even be impossible.

a reply to: theMediator

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

Why?

What is the line labeled 45 degrees in your diagram?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
That would be the elevation of Polaris from 45ºN. That's fine.
The problem is, at the equator, he is showing an elevation of 27º. That would be fine too, if the equator was at 27ºN. But it isn't, is it?

a reply to: Phage

What are you going to say a crazy tale like the latitude of the equator is 0 degrees?

Phfff

a reply to: Phage
He appears to have the two legs of what should be an isosceles right triangle (if it's 45°) measuring different lengths. Way different when they should be the same length. That diagram is jacked.

At 45°N lat, you're about 3100 miles from the North Pole. If Earth were flat that would put Polaris about 3100 miles above the Earth. That's not the case of course, and to complicate it further, Polaris appears on the horizon from the equator.

This could not be possible on a flat Earth.

My hypothesis:

We are entering the high point of an era that began some time ago - an era I call, "The contrarian and misanthropic as cool period."

Whatever is not "mainstream" is applauded simply for not being mainstream. It doesn't matter if it has any other merits beyond that. If it's not "mainstream" (a dirty word now) it's clearly superior, of greater integrity, of greater truth, and more authentic than any other paradigm.

If it has an air of having been discovered by an individual, and especially if it reeks of being some sort of "hidden truth," then all the better. People want to believe that they are being lied to and, more to the point, that they are intelligent and capable enough to figure out the real truth for themselves. Which makes sense, as I feel even the most unfamiliar at this point probably can sense we're being lied to in some way or another. Intuitively. But the response to this has been to embrace anything and everything that is presented as occult or non-mainstream, irrespective of its veracity.

The reason I include the term misanthropic before "as cool" and not just contrarian, is because I have also noticed a rising popularity in simply detesting everything for the sheer sake of doing so. Especially if it's popular. I'm not talking about shunning the commercial in favor of seeking out the sincere. People have always done that, depending upon taste of course. I'm referring to the currently en vogue tendency to immediately, summarily, and fervently respond to anything and everything with overt hostility, denigration, and - in many instances at least - bigotry toward one or more of the people involved in whatever that thing is.

It's a sort of instant backlash instinct that seems to have taken hold. Going far beyond simple distaste, critique, or criticism, I'm talking about what comes off looking like a veritable culture of trying to be edgy, hip, and cool by just viciously slamming anything just for the sake of doing so.

Put all of this together, and you end up with people becoming famous and influential simply because they go against the grain (read: "not influenced by the mainstream" and therefore "uncorrupted,") are overtly misanthropic (read: "Honest" and "not kowtowing to political correctness," even if in practice this simply means lacking civility and decorum,) and whole movements of people embracing beliefs purely because they are not mainstream (read "not deceived by the lies of the establishment.")

I understand the reasons for this instinct in people. And the reasons, at least in my opinion, are legitimate and relatable. We have lost faith in our institutions, and are struggling to find something we can believe in that makes some semblance of sense out of our world again. But the form it has taken, for me, is deeply disturbing.

Now personally, I don't particularly mind what anyone believes as I've said in other posts. When I was younger, I used to become frustrated by people's beliefs and willingness to accept things without evidenciary support. However as I've aged, I've learned we all do this to some fundamental degree - even if it's just in the willingness to get up every day instead of laying down and awaiting death - and increasingly I take a detached, amused view of all things anthropological and sociological. I cannot, nor do I wish to, control what anyone else does, and getting upset about it not only achieves nothing, but also belies an egotistic desire to control others' minds... and I wish to excise that urge from my psyche, personally.

Which is by no means to say I don't agree with educating people, etc. Knowledge is power, and a beautiful thing. So, indeed, educate (gently.) But I am no teacher. So I just sit back and watch the madness unfold, while trying my best to cope with my own.

But there is a darker side underneath this growing movement which does disturb me in some of the forms it takes on, that I think we need to be very aware of and vigilant against. Lest we end up with someone quite dangerous having real power and influence on the basis of this emergent phenomenon simply because we are rushing headlong toward a cliff called, "It's different from the mainstream so it has to automatically be better, right?" Alas, no.

As always, just my two cents, for whatever little they're worth.

Peace.

a reply to: AceWombat04

So I just sit back and watch the madness unfold, while trying my best to cope with my own.

What a great quote.

As myself, having an agnostic attitude towards everything, since nothing can truly be proven, I think about the Flat Earth Theory as-

originally posted by: dragonridr
The part o don't get is how someone can even rationalize a flat earth.

That's easy to do if you see everything that you've "learned" as opinions instead of "fact"

'What happens at the edge??

The edge is infinite, like trying to get to end of a game that keeps regenerating the "border lands" over and over again, never reaching the edge of the game. See explanation below.

How would gravity work what was underneath us??

Gravity probably doesn't "work" the way we've "learned" that is should. See explanation below.

Why does the oceans stay??

Because they are trapped within the circle, just as we are

And what would happen if you flew past the edge are you in space??

Yes/No. see above.

And then why would the sky remain seems like the entire atmosphere would constantly be traveling to the edges. Meaning we would see global weather winds would always travel to the closest edge and hurricanes would even be impossible.

Explanation:
Just like our world that we think we know so much about seems to be "electric", so then is the "universe" and EVERYTHING.

Everything is electric and therefore everything is some kind of light that exists in some kind of, I don't know let's call it plasma.

We "exist" as piles of energy, "frozen" together into small groups that become "things". Things we call Elements.

Our so called consciousness is a two way device that we mostly only know how to use one way, the receiving way.
The world, the universe, everything really only exists for each us uniquely but all of us collectively.

Holograms we are all connected as.

Well, gotta go get some more Sour Diesel, gotta run!

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

That diagram is jacked.

Of course it is. So I fixed it for him.

Polaris appears on the horizon from the equator.

Indeed it does. The elevation of Polaris coincides with latitude. At 45ºN, 45º above the horizon. At 60ºN, 60º above the horizon. Coincidence? I think not.
www.abovetopsecret.com...