a point by point demolition of the flat earth claims

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: totallackey
What help do you need?

Not my problem. I don't need any help. Go help the dude in England if you are there.

If you are near Chicago, you could help me with some other experiments I am doing. Starting with some observations.

a reply to: totallackey
This doesn't really involve "triangulation". It's as simple as the altitude of Polaris basically matches your latitude in the Northern hemisphere. Surely you understand what this means.

ETA: Check this out - debunkingflatearth.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: totallackey
This doesn't really involve "triangulation". It's as simple as the altitude of Polaris basically matches your latitude in the Northern hemisphere. Surely you understand what this means.

Yeah, I understand it to mean he was believing someone else for the measurement of the altitude of Polaris.

And the fact you brought into use the word "ALTITUDE," requires the use of triangulation in arriving at position, whether you are on a fixed plane or a sphere.

And that depending on what you believe you are on could result in a correct answer, either way. E2A: TY for the link.

dual post deleted

originally posted by: [post=20533137]totallackey
Simplest explanation for nearly all of what you have written?

Faith in what someone else has told you.

i DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING YET! Hell, I am looking into what life actually is or is not. Pardon me if I go out and test the stuff out myself. You? Go relax. Pop a beer bottle. Chill.

PS: Perspective and the limitations of human eyesight are just as plausible for your ship on the horizon example. Next time, take a pair of binoculars. Better yet, take a camera, along with a telescopic lens. Take a photo regular and then take one with telescopic. Not that will even prove the issue. Just give you something to think about.

Have a nice day.

I am having a nice day, thankyou.

I don't think you have the intellectual fortitude to believe anything that anyone says that is counter to your claims on this subject. I have looked at those ships with binoculars, the exact same things happen. But of course you will not believe me.

I doubt if I shot you into space in a transparent cubic capsule, which you personally chose the transparent material for and while in orbit witnessed with your own eyeball the spherical nature of earth, you would believe it.

And well done for completely ignoring the rest of my reply to you. Bravo

a reply to: totallackey

And that depending on what you believe you are on could result in a correct answer, either way.

The important thing to recognize is the viewing angle to Polaris results in ridiculously varying distances to the star demonstrating the impossibility of Earth being flat. That link has plenty of graphics to accompany the explanation. I can't do any better than that.

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: totallackey
What help do you need?

Not my problem. I don't need any help. Go help the dude in England if you are there.

If you are near Chicago, you could help me with some other experiments I am doing. Starting with some observations.

Sure, he can come over. But I doubt he will be able to disprove my ships rising up from the horizon, but we could at least have a good bonfire and barbeque while we try it out.

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: totallackey

Neil says it is an oblate spheroid, shaped more like a pear. See any photos from NASA that are shaped like a pear?

Even DeGrasse Tyson says that the pear-shaped Earth is NOT something that can be noticed just by looking at the Earth.

The difference in the width of the earth at its widest point compared to the pole-to-pole "height" of the earth is about 44km (28 miles). That's a 28 mile difference over the Earth's 8000 mile diameter. That would make the height 99.7% of the width.

That tiny bulge is not something you are going to notice by looking at the Earth or its shadow. You won't be able to "see" that pear-shape in pictures of the Earth. It's something that is discerned just through precise measurement.

To illustrate how tiny the difference is look at this graphic. This shape on the left is a perfect circle (or as perfect as the graphic software I used would allow ;-). The shape on the right is a slightly imperfect circle, with the height 99.7% that of the width, and the widest part being below the horizontal center, in the lower hemisphere, similar to the measured dimension of the "pear-shaped" Earth:

Can anyone really see a difference?

EDIT:
I changed the graphic to be side-by-side rather than top-and-bottom to fit better on the webpage.

No. I do not see much of a difference, even in this small size rendering you posted here. Neither would anyone else if they were being honest. Yet, you know because the images are your construct. So go ahead and construct me something resembling a pear and we will go from there...Show me how I can mistake a pear...

There was no need for Neil to be an asshat and introduce the word PEAR either, was there?

The images from NASA and all other space agencies are CONSTRUCTS/COMPOSITES/PHOTOSHOPPED CRAP...And the asshats are caught in their own words...

Why is he an asshat for using a word that describes Earth? Pear shaped, bigger on the bottom, like the Earth. Neil said the difference is too small to see with the naked eye. If there is a problem it is on your end.

If you do not think I can tell a pear from an apple or an orange or a mango or a grape or papaya or a tomato, simply by the shape, then you are wrong.

And so is Neil.

I think you are simply unable to understand the point Neil made. It's fine, science is not for everyone.

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: totallackey

Palmer and Rothera. Flat Earth is now impossible.

Sydney to Santiago. Flat Earth is now impossible.

Explanation?

Conclusion of impossibility - Wrong.

Conclusion of impossibility- Wrong.

Explained.

You made a claim, you explained nothing. Show me a flat Earth map. Tell me how long it takes to go from Sydney to Santiago in an airplane on that map, how many miles is it.

Flat Earth is now impossible.

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: totallackey
This doesn't really involve "triangulation". It's as simple as the altitude of Polaris basically matches your latitude in the Northern hemisphere. Surely you understand what this means.

Yeah, I understand it to mean he was believing someone else for the measurement of the altitude of Polaris.

And the fact you brought into use the word "ALTITUDE," requires the use of triangulation in arriving at position, whether you are on a fixed plane or a sphere.

And that depending on what you believe you are on could result in a correct answer, either way. E2A: TY for the link.

He means the astronomical definition of "Altitude", NOT the way most people use the word "altidude" to quantify how high off the ground something is.

Astronomers and skywatchers use the tern "altitude" mean "the measure the angle of the object above or below the observer's horizon". There is no need to triangulate using that astronomers' definition of the word. All you need to do is measure (usually in degrees) how high something is above the horizon -- as if the sky were a 2-dimensional dome; triangulation in that case is irrelevant.


By the way, If the Earth is flat, could you please explain the orbital mechanics of the satellites that I see in the sky at night? How do those orbits of a flat disk work? I understand how an orbit around the gravity of a sphere works, but a the orbital mechanics around the gravity of a disk has me baffled, especially considering the observations anyone could make of the trajectories of satellites (such as the ISS).

The amount of trolling in this thread is horrendous.

Having been to Spain provided me with some proof that the Earth is spherical:

1. I live in the UK, and the constellations Scorpius and Sagittarius are quite low above the horizon. In Spain, they were much higher in the sky.

2. One fine morning, I saw what appeared to be a chain of islands on the horizon of the Mediterranean sea. Upon checking the map, it turns out I've been looking at North Africa. Except that instead of seeing the coast (and everything beyond it) I saw only the tops of the mountains - because the coast was hidden below the horizon due to Earth's roundness.

my own photo:


To think of it, if the Earth were flat, we should be able to see terrain (and especially mountains) from 200 - 300 km away.

originally posted by: wildespace
The amount of trolling in this thread is horrendous.

He refuses to respond to my simple irrefutable proof other than to nener nener you're wrong.

originally posted by: MasterAtArms

originally posted by: [post=20533137]totallackey
Simplest explanation for nearly all of what you have written?

Faith in what someone else has told you.

i DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING YET! Hell, I am looking into what life actually is or is not. Pardon me if I go out and test the stuff out myself. You? Go relax. Pop a beer bottle. Chill.

PS: Perspective and the limitations of human eyesight are just as plausible for your ship on the horizon example. Next time, take a pair of binoculars. Better yet, take a camera, along with a telescopic lens. Take a photo regular and then take one with telescopic. Not that will even prove the issue. Just give you something to think about.

Have a nice day.

I am having a nice day, thankyou.

I don't think you have the intellectual fortitude to believe anything that anyone says that is counter to your claims on this subject. I have looked at those ships with binoculars, the exact same things happen. But of course you will not believe me.

I doubt if I shot you into space in a transparent cubic capsule, which you personally chose the transparent material for and while in orbit witnessed with your own eyeball the spherical nature of earth, you would believe it.

And well done for completely ignoring the rest of my reply to you. Bravo

First, provide everyone here, for our edification and enlightenment, all the claims I have made here. Go ahead, make our day.

Awwww...what shall we make of the last statement...

Feelings of being ignored, by someone you deem to be a cretin...

God dude...run, do not walk, to your nearest mental health center...

a reply to: totallackey

Show me a flat Earth map. Tell me how long it takes to go from Sydney to Santiago in an airplane on that map, how many miles is it.

Flat Earth is now impossible.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: wildespace
The amount of trolling in this thread is horrendous.

He refuses to respond to my simple irrefutable proof other than to nener nener you're wrong.

Hey, Copernicus...You have made two claims now...

One, you implied I called you a liar.

Here, you overtly write I labeled your supposed irrefutable proof as "wrong."

Bravo Sierra on both claims.

As far as everyone else is concerned, I will continue my observations and post my photos in a couple of weeks.

Pissing matches are for kids. So, go pay the bills.

a reply to: totallackey

So you still refuse to answer.
Show me a flat Earth map. Tell me how long it takes to go from Sydney to Santiago in an airplane on that map, how many miles is it.

Flat Earth is now impossible.

You can answer or I will take your silence on the subject as an admission you know you are wrong.

a reply to: totallackey

So after being repeatedly asked for proof of a flat earth, you come back with......no proof.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: totallackey

So after being repeatedly asked for proof of a flat earth, you come back with......no proof.

Did you see where I stated I am going to take a series of photos over the next couple of weeks and do my own observations? What #ing part of that did you #ing misunderstand?

Proof of a flat earth is not the #ing title of the #ing thread is it? What the # is your #ing problem?

a reply to: totallackey

Well it is about demolishing the claims of flat earth.

You are a flat earth believer. Where's your proof? I mean, you must have some to believe it over a spherical earth, right? You wouldn't just believe something without....what's the word.... Oh yeah....proof?