Flat Earth really needs to go away. I've seen no real evidence or logic to disprove a spherical earth

get off your ass and do the math your self

Do the math yourself

Right, because that's really simple

How does a flat earth explain depth downwards?

and wake up while you're at it, sheeple!!!

I like it. They'll be much better off drinking seawater than fluoridated Obamawater, anyway.

that one was funny

once and for all proving to the masses that the earth is in fact flat.

I’d fund a balloon (no parachute) to take you high enough to prove you’re wrong, sure.

how about a comet space ship and some kool-aid

The cyanide kind?

You could start the kickstarter yourself, but you won't. Why?

Someone with a more prominent name would have a greater success.

Currently the most prominent name in flat earth stuff is Tila Tequila.

So anyone else would be better to do it.

I believe both parties would be equally as excited about the proposition.

Nah, this is like people wanting to find the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot. The only ones that would get excited about an expedition are the believers.

interesting that you find more pleasure in orchestrating mass murder than opening up a scientific debate, you really should have been around for the crusades they could have used a man like you

[deleted]

huh, I'm a girl.

na there's proof all around you, because to create a ball each part of the world has to curve a certain amount and turns out it doesn't curve at all. you actually do not need to travel far at all to do the proof.

[deleted]

ha. as long as everybody get's a ride back home. go for it,

jesus these people are idiots, stop trolling the sub with this idiotic bullshit

like whale wars for flat earth!!!!

Golgafrincham Ark B

You are trolling b/c you do not understand the FE map. The way to prove FE is false would be to similar KT fly in a straight line over/across the center of Antarctica. It's that simple (but will never happen)

you could murder all of us because we don't believe what you believe, of course then you'd be guilty of genocide, but sounds like that's more comfortable for you than questioning what you learned in 4th grade. so -- hey --- understandable.

why don't you take a trip into space until you can confirm what Nasa tells you is up there? don't come back without a moon rock (real one this time) .

as for a non-murderous trip to prove round or flat earth. an airplane would do it, just fly ACROSS antartica, nobody has done it yet, if it can be done -- big win for round -- . but so far it has not been done.

I also lack the same. i think the only way is to get the debate as loud and as proud as possible, money follows where google hits tell it to. then a journey to proof will get funded by somebody and it will be awesome ,

there was a woman named Andrea Barnes who took few very publicized trips to Antarctica because she was sure earth was flat and she wanted to find the edge, she never made it across or to an edge I think she was killed on her third try, but there's an untold history of these expeditions. I think it would e great to start them up again. with much more safety mechanisms in place this time,

Except many planes have flown over Antarctica. There's also a commercial tourism airliner that flies over and across Antarctica for sightseeing.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2372669/

The forum you posted to is from 2005.... And no commercial flights will fly over the Antarctic (according to my research). Do you have any more recently available commercially available flight information?

4 times a week flight QFA28 goes from Santiago de Chile to Sydney Australia. The flight doesn't go straight over the arctic because the weather is really bad and if anything goes wrong, rescue would be next to impossible. The flight does skirt antarctica though. More importantly, the great circle route takes it south. On a flat earth, the journey would be much shorter if they flew north to the equator before going back south to Australia.

This is just one flight. There aren't as many flights in the southern hemisphere because there's fewer big airports.

QFA28

Is this the flight you are referencing? http://awesomescreenshot.com/00d5kylve5

apprently this flight is debated, mystery! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPmTsZpDSJI

don't want to freak you out or anything but if you look at that flight path on a flat earth map it actually looks like the shortest route possible. the big loop down gets stretched straight.

http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/modern+flat+earth+map.png

& here's some super fun flat earth flight path humor for you if anybody is up for it,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MySetcgzdCI

It's not the shortest path. The shortest path is a straight line in red. More importantly, the flight is 20 minutes shorter than New York to Tokyo (blue line).

hm. how can the flight be twenty minutes shorter than the the blue line flight on a globe even? that seems like impossible timing either way you look at it.

re: seeing it as the shortest path - seems to me if it's going to stick to the open ocean for whatever reason that curved line is really more of a straight line. but -- even if it's a globe it makes no sense to dip down like that if it makes no stops along the way,

that is a weird flight path for a flat or ball earth. are you sure it's real?

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/JAL3

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28

you know this is something IM really not sure about. I've heard lots of talk about this in flat earth discussions but never really followed up on it, I've heard people talk over certain - specifically quantum flights that they think are not real, I don;'t know if this is the one or what. I've also heard that there are issues with flights not really being the length they are supposed to be - and continual issues with this, but I don't have any evidence of it in fact when I heard it i wasn't sure I believed it or not. but I do find it interesting that that southern hemisphere flight looks like it is impossibly fast, not even wondering about the choice of route. I have a friend who's taken two trips to antarctica on those big tourist boat trips, so I know for a fact in that way people do visit - but they can't venture far onto it.

but it's really two separate issues -- can you go over antarctica (seems to me - no) and what that flight path you are showing me means -- I don't know. it is definitely indicating against flat earth, but the evidence for flat earth is so overwhelming I'd need to have more verification about this one flight. i don't know what exacty, maybe somebody who took it verifying the path and length of the journey. it's hard to just see it as evidence - since it seems to not completely make sense even if the earth were a ball.

All "evidence" for flat earth either ignores crucial information or stems from some misunderstanding of physics. Eric Dubay's 200 proofs start with some outright lies, like when he says there are no flights in the Southern Hemisphere (there are) or that surveyors don't take into account the curvature of the Earth (they do). Willfully perpetuating something that is not true is called lying. That video contains lies.

So much of our technology depends on the earth being round. Things like inertial gyroscopes used in navigation systems work off the Sagnac Effect which was used to prove the Earth rotates.

But I'm not interested in rehashing this. I just have one question. Do you think it is more likely that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people have been engaging in a colossal deception for millenia, and have done it so well that there has never been a whistleblower or any kind of solid evidence; or that a handful of people are deliberately creating controversial youtube videos in order to garner views and get ad revenue?

I don't think any of our functioning technology depends on our earth being round. in fact I think radar and radio alone proves flat earth. and gyroscopes use the fact that water is always level. (not curved) and compass use the north pole only they could care less about the south pole (probably because it is not a pole) but sure -- no debate on that,

I think people would have a really hard time creating this contraversy for whatever motive if their argument was not incredibly persuasive - given the social price to pay for anybody who realizes they believe it, and I think it's the weakness in the globe model that gives flat earth theory that strength. I think flat earth itself might be proven wrong, I see it as the best theory so far only, but with it came the disproof of the globe, and that's math, I don';t care if there are some lies mixed in --- the strength of the disproof is too expansive.

as for whats the likelyhood this deception could have been carried off, I think it happened, and that makes the likelihood %100 percent. I don't work backwards -- what's the likelihood I'd be spending tonight on reddit discussing fat earth theory -- you asked me that a year ago I'd say less than zero - but here I am. assessing likelihood it useful in making predictions - but when you recognize that something has happened likelihood is irrelevant.

I also think it's posible the number of people alive today who are "in on it" are a very very tiny number, if they are even still alive. I don't think you need people to be in on it - you just need a culture where questioning is frowned upon - done - and we all sell each other unknowingly for a couple centuries. I think a mistake can snowball. I think the internet brought it out because the ideas had a chance to reach those one in a million who would give it a listen when before statistically that just was not leading to the spread of the idea by word of mouth. I suspect nasa doesn't even know the lie they are hiding I think they know they are faking a lot of stuff - but I think they probably started out thinking they were gonna fake what might likely be true, -- I think I don't know what they were thinking. or the few people there who made most of their employees believe it was all real - what they were thinking.

asfor youtube views and add revenue, yeah they must be millionaires by now. haha. good on them.

the number of people alive today who are "in on it" are a very very tiny number, if they are even still alive

The number of people alive today would have to number in the millions.

Consider:

• Every scientist, engineer, technician, manager, and administrator for every satellite project done by university, commercial, and government organizations.

• Every hobbyist who has built a DIY GPS receiver.

• Every expedition to the antarctic (see Henry Worsly, most recently) involves not just the guy(s) on the trip, but the entire organization that procures equipment, helps plan the food and water requirements, etc. Actually, look at Worsly's trip, and plot it on a flat-earth map - his 900 mile trip would be at least 5 times longer!

• Every weather service, at least on the southern hemisphere. There's no way weather would act the same on a flat earth as on a globe.

• Everybody involved in citizen science projects involving space. That includes photographers who shoot pictures of the ISS as it passes overhead, people who classify STEREO images for CME's, and tons of other stuff.

• Every airline pilot, flight planner, logistics manager, shipping consultant, military strategist, ship captain, and balloonist would have to adjust the distances as shown on a map to the real distances to not run out of fuel, run out of time, exceed costs, etc..

• Just tons and tons of other things that I haven't listed.

All of these people would be either fabricating data to promote the globe-earth lie, or be directly exposed to fabricated data, and thus in a position to detect anomalies that would inevitably appear when coordinating a global conspiracy to (for some reason) trick people into thinking the Earth is a different shape than it is.

All of these people are human, with husbands and wives with whom they share secrets, with available alcohol and other drugs that loosen inhibitions to share secrets, with interpersonal issues that could encourage them to expose secrets, with diaries that can be left on a bus or snooped in by a suspicious spouse, and so on.

Only if you can show that it is more likely that such a conspiracy can be carried out, than that the Earth is actually a globe, does a flat earth theory make any kind of sense. At least then we can start talking about the science.

The original mods of /r/theworldisflat are using the Bible as a primary source, and accept the idea that like half the planet's population are in on it and actively working to continue the conspiracy, because Satan is behind the whole thing. That honesty is very refreshing, because it leaves open the possibility of talking about how to distinguish between a flat and globe earth, how a flat earth might operate, and how it might be constructed to look and behave like a globe earth. Except then I got banned, but it was nice for a while.

Edit:

More groups of people who must be "in on it":

• Anybody studying the internal structure of the earth (using earthquakes, for example)

• Anybody studying plate tectonics

• Anybody studying the fossil record (many features of which are explained very well with plate tectonics, but don't make sense on a flat earth)

• Anybody setting up a Foucault's Pendulum (the behavior doesn't make any sense except by Coriolis Effect on a sphere)

Saving this comment as it will give me something to point to every time yet another of these flat earth threads come up. Very well done listing of why the "conspiracy" aspect of this is utter nonsense.

I appreciate your reply. and it's a WAY better reply than most give - it's a real counter argument. thank you.

I might come back and go through some of these because I think the specific answers are really interesting.

but working rt now, but --

sop much of the sciences you talk about actually did not take into the account the curvature, it's though of as not a necessary factor on calculations - actually try to find the manner in which any body calculated it in - I think it's an assumption - but it's not really happening.

google a flat earth weather map -- you'll see the exact same weather as on a globe but it makes way more sense.

there are lots of videos explaining gps on a flat earth. and a lot of people saying GPS proves flat earth itself. you can find them with a google search.

it's amazing how much people are not effected by the shape of the earth. pilots don't point their planes to hug the planet, they fly straight, and then never prefer to fly with the spin of the earth instead of against - those issues are never a factor for them. they also never suffer when flung from the equator where earth spins over 1000 mph to the far north or south where earth spins close to zero mph. that shift never messes with their mechanics at all and they never need more fuel to correct for those changes. .

why do you assume plate tectonics don't make sense on flat earth? I say them make much more sense on a flat earth.

foucaults pendulem proves flat earth too if you ask me. it uses magnets for one, suggesting the energy flow it is illustrating has to do with magnetic flow. also it must be suspended from a very high place to work -- suggesting that it must be separated from the ground to allow the pendulum to moved independently from the movement of the earth. you have a HUGE problem if anything on the earth can separate from the movement of the earth, all those airplanes should be getting busted up traveling with and then against the earth spin. nothing should be able to separate while in the atmosphere -- so what is so special about the pendulum??? the pendulum does not work without magnets, that is a big red flag right there. it's illustrating a magnetic energy flow, not the spin.

anyway, we don't have to agree, but these are my general thoughts on your points raised, again thanks for giving a real argument - something even Degrasse has yet to provide,

I'm glad you see the merits of actually considering what's needed to create a conspiracy such as this. In fact we can model the likelihood that the conspiracy will be leaked over time, which is interesting.

Okay, let's talk science. I'll go through your comment point by point.

google a flat earth weather map -- you'll see the exact same weather as on a globe but it makes way more sense.

I've googled and googled, but all I can find are nonsensical weather patterns that would require wind speeds greater than the speed of sound (around antarctica), and weather maps that are drawn by some guy to "look good" but with no supporting data. Do you have a flat earth weather map for me to look at that you find convincing? Maybe I'll have better luck addressing this point if I have something concrete. I'm curious how they model the edge, for example.

Also, keep in mind that any weather map of a globe earth is going to be distorted, because a map is a projection of the spherical surface. The only non-distorted map would be an orthographic projection, which is what you get here. You can actually change the projection by opening the options menu in the bottom left, and choosing a different projection from the list at the bottom.

it makes way more sense.

For thing A to make more sense than thing B, you must be able to show a flaw in B that does not exist in A. So if you think flat-earth weather makes more sense than globe weather, perhaps you can point out which aspects of globe weather don't make sense, and then show how flat-earth weather explains it.

there are lots of videos explaining gps on a flat earth.

As far as I can tell, they all require either "pseudosatellites" or for GPS signals to bounce off the ionosphere. Pseudosatellites are unlikely, given that there's no evidence of their existence, nor has anybody come forward who was involved with the design, construction, installation, operation, or maintenance of these devices, which must exist all over the planet, even in remote ocean locations. As for "bouncing" GPS signals, the general term is "skywave" radio transmission, and GPS signals are the wrong frequency. This makes sense because GPS signals are designed to travel from satellites in LEO through the ionosphere to receivers on the ground (or in the lower atmosphere) with minimal deflection.

a lot of people saying GPS proves flat earth itself

I'm afraid I don't follow any of these explanations. They're so far out of "the norm" in terms of physics and the principles regarding GPS operation. Maybe you can summarize/translate for me in a paragraph (a tl;dr of sorts)?

people are not effected by the shape of the earth

The Earth is really gigantic. That means that it's for all ordinary purposes, exactly flat - there's more height variation due to hills and waterways and stuff, that's more relevant, because these variations are very local. Only with a broader perspective does the curvature become relevant.

pilots don't point their planes to hug the planet, they fly straight

At any given moment, the pilot is adjusting his altitude in response to variations in air pressure, wind conditions, changes in the airplane's weight distribution as fuel is consumed and as people move around in the cabin, etc etc. The very minor adjustment that would be necessary when piloting something around a perfectly uniform sphere in a perfectly uniform atmosphere would be measured in degrees per hour. Not something you have to actively account for when already accounting for all the other reasons you have to adjust the airplane's attitude.

never prefer to fly with the spin of the earth instead of against

I'm not understanding you here. Why would pilots prefer one direction over the other? They start and stop co-rotating with the earth, so the amount of time and fuel required to go around the earth east-west is the same as west-east, disregarding prevailing winds.

they also never suffer when flung from the equator where earth spins over 1000 mph to the far north or south where earth spins close to zero mph

Two things here. Firstly, they're not "flung". It takes like 6-8 hours to fly from the equator to a pole. Secondly, the deflection they experience on this voyage is exactly what's predicted by the Coriolis Effect, and that is definitely accounted for in fuel costs.

I have a meeting but I'll continue later with the last few the things - plate tectonics and foucault's pendulum.

Okay, back:

Plate tectonics

I guess I have a harder time seeing how or why plates move around on a flat earth, than a sphere. Is there a plastic mantle in a flat earth? Why do plates around the edge move so much more than in the middle? I dunno, just makes more sense to me in a globe world, but I don't have anything concrete to point at here.

foucaults pendulem ... it uses magnets ... doesnt work without magnets

Where'd you get that idea? Foucault's pendulum doesn't need magnets at all. Just any old pendulum swinging freely from an anchor that freely rotates. FP's are often really long and heavy, to keep deflections due to air currents and imperfect anchors and so on to a minimum. However, any pendulum slows down over time due to friction (with the air, if nothing else), which is why magnets are often used in FP setups in museums and stuff because then you can let it keep swinging without being reset or given a push that might be off-center. You could set up an FP in a big vacuum chamber, and that would keep going a really long time, but it would also be silly because FP's are cool to look at and vacuums are expensive to create and maintain, and there's a perfectly good solution with magnets.

one thing at a time for me --

never prefer to fly with the spin of the earth instead of against I'm not understanding you here. Why would pilots prefer one direction over the other? They start and stop co-rotating with the earth, so the amount of time and fuel required to go around the earth east-west is the same as west-east, disregarding prevailing winds.

the problem is force. if you forever fly around the equator fine. no obvious issue, but if you fly from equator far north lets say - you are going to have to correct the force of the equator spin and reduce it to say alaska spin .this is in addition to the trip you are making. you have to slow down a pull you had applied to you before by about lets say roughly a change of 500 mph. anybody who works a vehicle with an engine knows it takes fuel to start and stop, and esp to correct a directional force, it's a ship turning around in an ocean. it should take a lot of work to correct the directional force applied at the equator to the lack of force applied at alaska, and yet nobody has to correct for this - it's as if it's no issue, smooth sailing in any direction save for some trade winds. remember basics physics, force can't disappear it has to be transferred. you can't step off a merry go round onto stable ground and not go stumbling. same principle but on a 500 mph scale. and saying you have 5 hours to make that change doesn't matter, the change must still occur, a massive counter force must still be applied even if you disperse it over a long time you still have to explain where that counter force comes from.

Let's say it takes 5 hours to make this transition, from point A close to a pole to point B close to the equator, where point B is moving 500mph faster than point A. Then you're accelerating from 0 to 100mph over the course of an hour. Given that a fully loaded 747 accelerates from 0 to 180mph in one minute at takeoff, the force required is well within reasonable bounds. It's less than 1% of takeoff acceleration. I don't understand where you see a problem?

The fact is airplane trajectories take the coriolis effect into account, and issues like cross-winds are a much more significant factor over the course of 5 hours than the coriolis force.

crickets

There are so many misunderstandings in this post, I almost don't know where to start.

I'm lazy, so I'll start with the easiest. The Foucault pendulum.

foucaults pendulem proves flat earth too if you ask me. it uses magnets for one, suggesting the energy flow it is illustrating has to do with magnetic flow. also it must be suspended from a very high place to work -- suggesting that it must be separated from the ground to allow the pendulum to moved independently from the movement of the earth. you have a HUGE problem if anything on the earth can separate from the movement of the earth, all those airplanes should be getting busted up traveling with and then against the earth spin. nothing should be able to separate while in the atmosphere -- so what is so special about the pendulum??? the pendulum does not work without magnets, that is a big red flag right there. it's illustrating a magnetic energy flow, not the spin.

Guess what? You can do the test with stone or any non-ferrous (non-magnetic) metal, and the exact same thing will happen. The original test was done with brass-coated lead - lead that is almost entirely non-ferrous.

the magnets are at the top. in a ring around the metal cord/ whatever is being used to dangle the object at the bottom. the magnet is not at the bottom.

Yes, and that magnet is used merely to keep the sphere at the bottom moving in it's natural direction, nothing else.

Any pendulum consists of a cable or wire or string and a bob. For a pendulum to easily demonstrate the Foucault effect, it should have as long a cable as possible (this one is 52 feet) and a heavy symmetrical bob (this one is hollow brass, weighing about 240 pounds). Like all pendulums this one loses a bit of energy with each swing due to friction from air currents and vibrations in the cable and other factors. Thus, left to itself the pendulum would swing in shorter and shorter arcs until after a few hours it will decrease almost to zero. To keep the Foucault Pendulum going, one must replace the energy lost with each swing. This can be done by giving the pendulum a little "kick" with each swing.

To do this, two iron collars are attached to the cable near the top. There is a doughnut-shaped electromagnet built into the ceiling, and the iron collar swings back and forth inside the hole of the doughnut. When the pendulum cable reaches a particular point in its swing, it is detected by an electronic device and the magnet is turned on at just the right time to give the collar (and thus the cable and the bob) a little "kick" in the exact direction of its natural swing. This restores the energy lost during the swing and keeps the pendulum from stopping. It has no effect on the direction of the swing, and thus does not interfere with the demonstration that the earth is rotating.

Therefore they are not the cause of it's change in direction - the natural rotation of the earth is.

ha. rationalize all you want, the magnets are necessary because the pendulum illustrates magnetic energy flow. nothing else.

All I want? You're the one that's making claims you can't prove and misunderstanding basic science.

you're the one trusting a myth that makes no sense. your a sucker, plenty throughout all of human history, still it's no excuse.

A myth that makes no sense? Just because you don't understand basic science like momentum, relative and absolute motion, and the concept of a pendulum, that doesn't mean the rest of us don't.

You can't even explain how "magnetic energy flow" makes the pendulum move in its specific manner. You just make that vague claim and expect it to disprove science that has been understood for over a hundred years.

you think the pendulem needs magnets to "move naturally"

but you do know that magnets have pull and push? that's what magnets do -- they ALTER and INFLUENCE the movement of other metals.

if you buy that in this special case the property of magnets goes away and this time they only help something to "move naturally" then you are not thinking critically.

I understand basic science and then some. that is WHY I know the globe doesn't work.

No, I think it needs magnets to continue to move. Otherwise it will lose momentum and eventually stop. That's the only reason the magnets are there. It's a simple concept.

I understand basic science and then some.

You have repeatedly had people attempt to explain to you how a plane can go from the equator to northern or southern latitudes without having major problems, and in all cases the explanations have sailed way over your head.

the spin of the earth should be enough to make it continually move IF the spin of the earth is the force moving it.

if the magnets have to keep it going - it's the magnets doing the moving.

you are the ones being willfully blind here, I thought we were on a spinning ball too - I bought all of it my whole life until about 8 months ago when I double checked all the math. wake the f up. all of you. wake up.

the spin of the earth should be enough to make it continually move IF the spin of the earth is the force moving it.

It's not the spin of the earth that is the force moving it! The force that starts the pendulum moving can be as simple as someone pushing it, or releasing it after pulling back on the weight. The proof of the faucult pendulum is that given that the pendulum moves in the same direction - it is the earth that moves underneath it that makes it look like it changes direction. Why are you trying to make up your own bizarre reasonings around this proof?

I bought all of it my whole life until about 8 months ago when I double checked all the math.

Right - as demonstrated by your constant failure to understand momentum and relative vs absolute movement. I'll take your "proofs" with an everest-sized grain of salt.

How old are you?

old enough to think for myself and not too old to entertain new thoughts

What? You jumbled your sentence up.

Seriously though, how old are you? What do you do professionally?

would you like my SS# too? hahaha. you are going to have to meet me in real life to ask those questions. but it's not me you need to investigate, it's the shape of the world you live on. I'll tell you one thing - I went to higher ranked schools than Neil Degrasse Tyson. And I completed all of my programs with honors unlike him. but it really does not matter, the ideas must stand on their own - no matter the personal qualities of the person who is sharing them with you. and they do.

No, I'm asking for your age. Because you're so afraid of telling me, I'm going to assume that you're a teenager. I guess you're scared that it'll hurt your "credibility". Don't be, you have none in the first place.

how old are you what do you do? or are you too scared to say?

I asked you first. If I tell you, will you also answer or will you just disappear as your type usually does? We can test your integrity if you wish.

it's the sweet way you lure me out that makes me want to give you all the info you need to find me in real life, i'll tell you this much , I'm an adult, and you have bored me enough.

How would I be able to find you from your age and profession? Why did you even ask ME then? Why would I even want to find you? Are you under the delusion that you're some kind of important person?

I'm an adult,

Sure you are. I told you you'd disappear without an answer. You guys are so predictable.

ha. well good bye creep. go stalk another flat earther. there are many of us and I'm sure you can find somebody your own age with a little effort.

Goodbye, teeny bopper with delusions of grandeur. Run away because you have no argument and are afraid to admit your age lol. That's your MO after all.

I'm curious what schools these are that are ranked higher than Harvard?

I'm also still hoping you'll answer my question to you in this thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/42vtpn/flat_earth_kickstarter/czf3j0c

sure - what exactly is your question? what I'm getting from what you are saying its that days light should be longer in the "southern" hemisphere than in the north, if the flat earth map is accurate and it is - what is the question exactly?

Sort of, but not exactly. There are countless inconsistencies when you try to apply your model to the actual sunrise and sunset times across the world. The length of day in the Southern Hemisphere is one problem, but not the one I was talking about. That one can be sidestepped by claiming the actual layout of the map is a work in progress and hasn't been perfected. What I was asking about were two specific known patterns that are impossible in your model, no matter what the actual configuration is.

Your model is based on two claims: 1. The surface of the earth is effectively two dimensional. 2. Sunrise and sunset are directly caused by the proximity of the sun to the observer. On a map, we can therefore define the range of the sun by a circle. Anything outside the viewable radius is in nighttime. Anything within the circle is daylight. So now you can take this model (a flat map and a circle of whatever size you want) and try to move the circle around on the map to demonstrate the known patterns of night and day around the world.

The temptation is to look at known sunrise and sunset times in a specific location and try to match them with the model, but as I said, this can always be sidestepped by simply claiming the location is just in the wrong place on the map. So what I was trying to do is pick known phenomenon which aren't location dependent.

The best example is the equinox. If you accept that the equinoxes exist (i.e. thst there are two days a year where day and night are equal length anywhere on earth. If you deny this, which the very site you linked me to yesterday corroborates, we can discuss that) then you need to be able to demonstrate with the model how they can happen. I'm saying that it is geometrically impossible to move the circle around on the 2-d map in such a way that every location on the map gets an even day and night. The shape of the circle guarantees that whichever locations are passed over by the center point (wherever the sun passes directly overhead) will get a longer day than at least one of the sides of the circle. You can pivot it however you want in one direction, but that only decreases the time the other side covers a given location.

The other knowable fact that makes your model impossible is that the length of day and night never change at the equator. Again, place a circle on a flat piece of paper and move it around in a way that always covers the same amount of a specific ring, but covers other parts of the paper for variable amounts of time. In other words, in your model when you show the sun moving to a wider or narrower path to demonstrate changing of the seasons, it would also necessarily change the length of day at the equator. It is impossible to find a pattern that wouldn't. But we know the length of day and night at the equator are always consistent, so again the model can't explain the real world observations.

It's these known, observable, verifiable phenomenon are geometrically impossible in a 2-d model based only on proximity to the sun. However, once you introduce a third dimension, it all makes perfect sense. If you want to maintain a 2-d earth in your model, you need an explanation for sunrise and sunset that's more nuanced than simple proximity. You need to provide a mechanism that changes the shape of the coverage of the sun from a circle to something else. You need a shape that can move around and still cover everything evenly sometimes, yet at other times evenly in some places an unevenly in others.

you bring up good arguments, and hooray for somebody really arguing the specifics rather than lame character attacks.

are you sure the sun does not move more to one side of the visible sky and the more to the other during summer and winter but still maintaining equal duration of sunlight at the equator? I actually don't know but that would be my first guess as the answer to that question. I think it would have to already be doing that to explain the globe model expectation of the axis tilt.

I think, purely thinking about geometry here and not having studied all the knowable daylight hours here, but assuming what you say is occurring exactly as you say -- I think there should be a circle path within a circle -- further out than at the equator but not all the way to the edge that would evenly distribute the sunlight - and would give that time of year where everybody gets equal day time. I don't know the exact math for it - but since the wider the circle means more sunlight outward and less in -- there has to be a sweet spot where a certain circle can distribute the light equally. and no it wont be half way out it must be ~ 2/3rds out . or so. but mathematically speaking there must be a sweet spot where that can occur.

are you sure the sun does not move more to one side of the visible sky and the more to the other during summer and winter but still maintaining equal duration of sunlight at the equator? I actually don't know but that would be my first guess as the answer to that question. I think it would have to already be doing that to explain the globe model expectation of the axis tilt.

Of course it does, but that explanation explicitly relies on the third dimension. Think of a basketball with the two rings around it that meet on either side. Now imagine those rings were actual rings hinged at the two points of intersection and take the ball away. You could pivot the rings however you wanted and still have them intersect at the two hinged points. One of those rings represents border between day and night on the earth, and the other represents the equator. As the earth revolves, the tilt causes those rings to pivot relative to one another. Now, place your finger (in your mind) somewhere on the ring representing the equator and slide it along. As you progress through the daylight side, you make an arc relative to the position of the sun (directly perpendicular to the daylight ring) that always meets the daylight ring halfway around. You can't do any of this in two dimensions.

It also raises another problem with the 2-d + proximity model: how can the earth always be half in daylight and half in night? Pick any time of day, any day of the year, and look at sunrise and sunset times across the globe. What you will find is that it is daytime on exactly half of the earth at any time. Using the example of the two rings above, that was represented by one of the rings that directly bisects the sphere. Your 2-d model would have to always be exactly half covered by the range of the sun. In order to do this, a few things would need to be true. We need a circle representing the range that has half the area of the map itself. You can't use any overhang off the map to make it work, because once you adjust more or less overhang, you change the total area of the actual map covered. This means your sun range circle has to overlap the "north pole" or whatever center point you choose, because if you have two circles and one has half the area of the other, its diameter is more than half of the other's. That's basic geometry. So if your sun range overlaps the "north pole," and you have to keep the entire thing over the earth at all times, there will be a point on earth where it is always daylight. There's nowhere to move the sun to make this location out of its range. Now, we know that in the summer in the arctic the sun barely sets, but in the winter they barely see the sun. There's nowhere on earth that is always in daylight. Yet for your model to explain how half the earth is alway illuminated, it would be a requirement.

I think, purely thinking about geometry here and not having studied all the knowable daylight hours here, but assuming what you say is occurring exactly as you say -- I think there should be a circle path within a circle -- further out than at the equator but not all the way to the edge that would evenly distribute the sunlight - and would give that time of year where everybody gets equal day time.

Now, applying the same principles just talked about previously, we can easily see that there isn't a path that makes this work either. First off, we know that the edge of the range circle has to pivot around the "north pole" or whatever midpoint you choose. If it overlapped it, you would have a location where it is always daylight. If you fell short of it, you would have a point that never saw the sun that day. So now we just need to find the radius of the range circle that allows it to perfectly bisect the map. The only way to do this is to draw a straight line through the middle of the map. This means the sun would have to be so far away, and the radius of its range so large, that the curved edge is magnified to the point where it's effectively a straight line across the map of the earth. It would have to be many orders of magnitude farther away than the diameter of the entire earth. Of course, this would violate a ton of other principles we know, like that the sun passes directly overhead to some parts of the world. And again, once you introduce a third dimension to the model, it all works perfectly. Take a ball and shine a light source on it, no matter where you move the ball, half of it is always facing the light and half isn't.

The cool thing about all of this stuff is you don't have to take anyone's word for it. You can test these models yourself with pen and paper, or household objects, and see if they work. If you can come up with 2-d models that solve these puzzles, I'd love to hear about it.

EDIT: No response? I took the time to go through all of that and type it out. You can't share what you think of it?

as for what programs are ranked higher than other programs. there are resources for you to find a collection of options, your curiosity needn't torment you too much.

double checked all the math

Sweet! Math! Now this I like! I've also checked the math and so far, globe earth checks out. What is the mathematical smoking gun, to you?

call these guys and ask them if there need to be magnets used at the top of their pendumem/ all foucoults pendulems. they will confirm yes.

http://griffithobservatory.org/exhibits/centralrotunda_foucaultpendulum.html

the conversation you just showed me specifically says that flights are not allowed to fly over antarctica and for unknown reasons. it references that there was a couple flights made at some point, probably -- Id like to see evidence for those flights it sounds verry probable that they never occurred since it is only heresay of a maybe thing and otherwise there are no flights at all.

I still don't see how this flight goes over the Antarctic.

it doesn't. no flights go over antarctica. even nasa doesn't fly over it.

So there are no flights that would be more efficient flying over the antarctic?

I'm not understanding your meaning. are you suggesting we charter this flight to take a divergence?

No I think I just confused myself. Thanks for the information.

I still don't see how this flight goes over the Antarctic.

First flight across Antarctica, 1935

Doesn't seem like they flew over the center of Antarctica, but rather over the edges (which would be possible on FE map. To disprove FE Theory they would need to fly over the geographic center of Antarctica which NO ONE has ever done in the history of Earth as far as we know. 😵

how did they refuel??

cruising radius of 7,000 miles fully fuelled.

Per the article, that got them within 16 miles of Little Amerca. They waited there until found by preplanned rescue.

it sounds like a sketchy proof to me. if it can be done once -- lets see it again and proven with greater documentation. not just - trusting the word of the one guy who claims he did it, because he's not bringing back video evidence or anything, he's just saying believe me.

"He's not bringing back video evidence..." This happened in 1935, decades before video recording was invented. However, their departure from one side of Antarctica and arrival at the other were witnessed. By shills in the pay of Big Planet, no doubt.

ha. i'd like to see a repeat all the same.

You're welcome to start a kickstarter to make it happen - nobody is stopping you.

I don't believe it can be done.

You don't seem to follow that, since 1935, people have done it a lot. They do it for sport

What do you say to the people who send cameras up in model rockets and can see the curve of the earth in the pictures?

I say nice go pro / nice fish eye lens

.... Alrighty then. Geometry not your strength, but I could have guessed. Its ok, believe what you will.

Just side note btw nasa also can't provide a moon rock....

yes, my point exactly.

I think the Nazi's were working on a plan like this, maybe you could read up on how they did it , get some pointers etc, from one great thinker to another!!!!! get rid of those peeps who are ruining it for the rest of you all/ globalists power!!! best way to win a debate is to terminate anybody with an opposing opinion - the best mass murderers in history always say.

hey this desire to kill off those who challenge the ideology of the status quo - has been acted on many a time throughout history, just wanted to add a little wake up call to your party here. not that I really fear for my life. and I get it you're like really freaking annoyed at flat earthers. but hey -- don't talk about sending us all off never to return again - anyway, even joking about mass murder isn't cool. people can lose jobs and significant others talking about their thoughts on flat earth, you globers are sitting pretty, remember -- new ideas can be good even when they make no sense at first, don't hate too hard .not for this.

ok. it sounded like you meant otherwise, but If this is the case - awesome .

Ok its obvious you believe this flat eart thing I will keep a open mind just cause hell why not.

Explain gravity.

yay!! open minds are the best.

what do you want to know about gravity? flat earth theory says it is bs. a magic formula thought up to explain why planets can suspend in space in orbit around each other. the way I personally see it there are two kinds of gravity, one is real and is essentially density. - all more dense things want to be under less dense things. your basic what goes up must come down stuff. I do not know what makes this so. but I find it to be observably undeniable that it is happening.

the other kind of gravity I find to be an unproven fairy tail, and that is this planets can pull at other planets stuff, and that the earth is a ball -- so that dense things aren's really falling down but "in". this is not a phenomena we can create ever. dip a tennis ball in water and then throw it spinning in the air - the water goes flying off in every direction. the fact that an object spins does not make anything stick to it or be attracted to it least of all water (which is what most of the earth is covered in) . this is a story we are told, it is a theory but we have NO proof except for more stories nasa tells us. but science should be based on repeatable experiments. when a network of gov funded space agencies are the only ones who can prove gravity, we have a problem . we the people should be able to test and prove that theory too.

I see so since you can replicate it on smaller scale its impossible right?

Hmmm well let me see how I can explain it to you. I got it. Your idea of gravity is that it pulls you to the center of the earth. How about we say it like it really is. That it pushes you. To observe this we can use the moon and total forces.

The moons gravity doesn't pull the tides to it like it did during the latest flooding on the east coast did it? Otherwise it wouldn't have flooded the areas inland.

The moon pushed the tides further away. That's why it flooded.

Gravity is also explained in that we don't just have a sphere spinning we have a core of magma spinning too. The force from that is what creates the gravity too.

I won't treat you like a retard cause it doesn't help anyone. You have your beliefs right? They work for your understanding of the situation because you can't replicate them. So its just not right.

For the earth to be flat all laws of physics is bullshit. That's harder to accept for me then just saying yeah earth is flat the end.

[deleted]

She*

don't accept it, I don't think any body accepts it instantly anyway. mast people takes days or even months ( ~ 3 for me ) once you decide to go into the materiel - usually with the motivation to be only amused or/ soon after to prove it wrong.

not everything is b.s. but some things are.

How does flat earth theory explain sunrise and sunset? Under current theory, we see a graduation between night and day as the sun vanishes and reappears over the horizon. Under flat earth theory there is no horizon - just a light directly overhead. How does flat earth theory explain this inconsistency? :)

thanks for asking!

that's one of the first things I wanted to know too, I could explain in words but first an image tells a lot more --

http://s29.postimg.org/x7xpsw1fb/76a250fd141682111040797474_700w_0.jpg

the sun is lower, much lower than we thought and it circles above shining only over part of the earth at any given time - when it seems to set is when it goes out of our line of sight. it never truly goes down.

How stupid could you actually be to believe this shit?

So what about when it sets over the ocean? Why can I only see half of the sun? It can be low and go out of sight, but the only way it would be split in half would be if it were behind something (e.g. the earth). Go off into the distance would just make it fade away.

go look at lamp posts down a long straight street. some of them far off will appear to your eye to be chopped off half way up - and then some you can't see at all. and then drive down that street to the other far end and see all those lamp posts are intact and as tall as ever, now look in the direction to where you had been standing -- sinking lamp posts!

it's your eye. nothing more. it's called a vanishing point. and yet -- it takes half of objects out of your view before it takes the whole thing.

That's only if there's a hill, in which case it's demonstrating a round earth on a smaller scale! If I'm on a flat plane, how could something possibly look cut off? If the top and bottom are both the same distance away, why would I see the top and not the bottom (unless something - the earth - were in the way)?

a hill will obscure view but that's something different, distance alone obscures view. get a camera with a zoom lens. go out side look as far in the distance as you can. find the "edge". then use your zoom lens and see if you can't see further, notice the edge is now further away and you can see more. did the earth just rise up? no. you're ability to see what had been there all along was enhanced, you can do this with a sunset too - a sunset will last longer if you use a zoom lens.

Looking at the sunset with a zoom lens will make it look bigger, but it won't show you the other half of the sun!

Unless there's something in the way, you'll be able to see all of something as it gets further away from you, then you will stop seeing it.

As the sun sets, you stop seeing the bottom of it first. This can only happen if something is blocking the bottom half from your line of sight. This would not happen if it didn't dip below the horizon.

what you are saying is just not true. looking into the principles of perspective drawing.

Perspective drawing states that as things get further away, they get smaller. No where does it cut anything in half. That's just not a thing, unless there's something in the way to obscure the object.

it's perspective, it's how your eye sees objects receding at a distance. everything condenses and disappears at the horizon line. but a horizon line is not a real edge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_9cFTQg7NE

condenses and disappears

Yes, but it doesn't get cut in half. The sun gets cut in half as it sets. If the sun were always above a flat earth, this wouldn't happen. If the sun were always above you, then the sun would always appear above you.

Interesting that you bring up perspective, seeing as one of the central parts of perspective is that things further away look smaller. If the sun were closer to the earth, the sun would appear much bigger at noon than just before sunset. Instead, it's always approximately the same size (it does change, but because the sun is 8 light minutes away the size change is imperceptible).

Also, your video placed the camera below the table. Try placing the camera on the table and holding the, uh, jalapeño slightly above it. See how far you have to move it away for half of it to be cut off.

Do you realize with that theory and any 2-dimensional map, regardless of the layout of continents you use, it would be impossible to get the actual sunrise and sunset times that we observe on Earth, right?

Day and night are always the same, equal length at the equator every day of the year. And day and night are this same, equal length everywhere on earth on the equinoxes. You can't make that happen with a 2-d map and your theory.

that's not true, look at a chart of day and night time hours around the world.

that's not true, look at a chart of day and night time hours around the world.

Which part are you disagreeing with? That day and night are equal everywhere on the equinoxes, or that this is impossible on a 2-dimensional map?

look how long daylight is in australia!

http://dateandtime.info/citysunrisesunset.php?id=2147714

why don't you take a trip into space until you can confirm what Nasa tells you is up there? don't come back without a moon rock (real one this time) .

as for a non-murderous trip to prove round or flat earth. an airplane would do it, just fly ACROSS antartica, nobody has done it yet, if it can be done -- big win for round -- . but so far it has not been done.

ha. rationalize all you want, the magnets are necessary because the pendulum illustrates magnetic energy flow. nothing else.