17 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhYou're trying way too hard to sound provocative. Obviously one can be receptive to new ideas without assuming that the current theories are necessarily false. A paradigm shift requires evidence and a logical argument to justify it, not just hot air.
a person would have to be completely ignorant of the same to fail to see conspiracy as handmaiden to power--- especially when it's been revealed repeatedly.
17 Sep 17
4 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhwhich experiment and/or measurement has ever shown a flat Earth or an Earth that might not be round?
Experiment.
Measure.
All measurements that indicate the shape of the Earth have always indicated the Earth to be round like a ball.
And how do you explain international transport around the whole globe? How can you reconcile that with a flat Earth?
17 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassI'm putting as little effort as possible and still cover the essential points, so whatever you think you're picking up, it's not coming from me.
You're trying way too hard to sound provocative. Obviously one can be receptive to new ideas without assuming that the current theories are necessarily false. A paradigm shift requires evidence and a logical argument to justify it, not just hot air.
The paradigm shift you reference is one of indoctrination over against actual science, i.e., observation, measurement and experimentation.
From early one--- and for literally no reason which makes any sense--- children aren't told to experiment or measure or even observe the shape of the earth; they're told that people smarter than them discovered the shape.
Is what it is.
Standing anywhere on the earth, observing distant objects on the same... any way it is looked at, and by any measure, nothing suggests a globe.
100% of every person who is currently challenging the shape of the earth was taught--- and believed--- the world is a globe.
You're left with two possible scenarios regarding the impetus behind the recent challenge.
Either the entirety of them are hipster contrarians who simply wish to be relevant and only see the path to relevance via outlandish claims which are otherwise unverifiable...
or...
there is validity to some or all of their claims.
And here's the rub: the claims either way are currently unverifiable.
100% of all physically measurable or observable data points to a flat earth.
The only proof for a globe earth is some convoluted math and photoshopped pictures allegedly taken from space.
If our space program were doing what they claim to be doing, it would be ridiculously easy to prove their actions are legitimate, and yet they continue to put forth fraudulent materials.
Why?
Why not shut the mouths of every naysayer by offering conclusive proof from ISS?
Why continue putting forth clearly faked and staged media presentations?
Have an extended live shot from ISS with a clear view of the earth which matches the ISS tracker and shows the exact and verifiable conditions below it on earth?
16 years, they've never been able to do this?
Why?
17 Sep 17
Originally posted by @humy8" per mile squared.
which experiment and/or measurement has ever shown a flat Earth or an Earth that might not be round?
All measurements that indicate the shape of the Earth have always indicated the Earth to be round like a ball.
And how do you explain international transport around the whole globe? How can you reconcile that with a flat Earth?
17 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhhttps://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/flat-earth-follies-how-to-derive-8-per.html
8" per mile squared.
try again.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @humyYou didn't read the entire article.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/flat-earth-follies-how-to-derive-8-per.html
try again.
He acknowledges that 8"×d² is...
"...only fairly accurate to about 100 miles but don't fret a few inches here and there when discussing the 'curvature' of the Earth."
One hundred miles is an awful long distance to cover with our vision, and without quibbling about his formulas and ideas for even greater, for the purpose of what has been stated already, i.e., distances well within his border are what have been discussed, there is no contradiction.
So after many, many convoluted formulas related to curvature, what does he rely on?
Something about which he knows nothing:
I also found a fun additional tidbit just following this part in which Rowbotham very clearly is aware of refraction -- which makes his 'Bedford Level Experiment' a complete sham.
Essentially, he wasted a lot of words to arrive at the same resolution which has been repeatedly found to be wanting.
He's admitting the numbers don't lie, and ends super-strong with a reliance on a topic of which he is completely ignorant.
Try again.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhHe is doing a great job of trolling the science forum. Why do you guys keep answering him?
You didn't read the entire article.
He acknowledges that 8"×d² is..."...only fairly accurate to about 100 miles but don't fret a few inches here and there when discussing the 'curvature' of the Earth."
One hundred miles is an awful long distance to cover with our vision, and without quibbling about his formulas and ideas for even great ...[text shortened]... d ends super-strong with a reliance on a topic of which he is completely ignorant.
Try again.
18 Sep 17
4 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbh
You didn't read the entire article.
He acknowledges that 8"×d² is..."...only fairly accurate to about 100 miles but don't fret a few inches here and there when discussing the 'curvature' of the Earth."
One hundred miles is an awful long distance to cover with our vision, and without quibbling about his formulas and ideas for even great ...[text shortened]... d ends super-strong with a reliance on a topic of which he is completely ignorant.
Try again.
He acknowledges that 8"×d² is...
"...only fairly accurate to about 100 miles but don't fret a few inches here and there when discussing the 'curvature' of the Earth."
Unless you are saying your flat Earth is only 100 miles wide;
try again.
From the same link you failed to read;
"Why 8" per mile squared is wrong
Now we can compare our better formula with this [8"×d²] estimation formula, I'll compare for Earth radius of 3959 miles:
Earth Radius
...(table of values that cannot be edited here but you can see them for yourself in the link)....
From this is it easy to see that [8"×d²] is somewhat accurate for distances up to about 100 miles and then it is absolutely terrible after that. ..."
No matter how you try and twist it, the link says the opposite of what you want.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @humyAs stated, very precious few (or, at least that I've heard of) of the examples I've heard of or that I have personally observed are in excess of 100 miles.He acknowledges that 8"×d² is...
"...only fairly accurate to about 100 miles but don't fret a few inches here and there when discussing the 'curvature' of the Earth."
Unless you are saying your flat Earth is only 100 miles wide;
try again.
From the same link you failed to read;
"Why 8" per mile squared is [b]wrong
Now we can co ...[text shortened]... at.[/b] ..."
No matter how you try and twist it, the link says the opposite of what you want.[/b]
The majority of those cited are significantly less than 50 miles in distance.
As 50 is still within this person's accuracy halo, and as this person is 'blessing' the otherwise generally accepted 8"×d²...
looks like we're still okay.
But, by all means, try again, little buddy!
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhWho cares anyway.
Experiment.
Measure.
Get back to me when you have that accomplished.
Ask any airliner pilot and you will have the correct answer. Don't, and stay ignorant.
You are nothing but a troll having fun on others expenses.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhexactly. That is because the Earth isn't flat. Why do you make my point for me? Try again.
The majority of those cited are significantly [b]less than 50 miles in distance. [/b]
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasunless it is one of those flat-eather airliner pilots that refuses to fly too far across the pacific ocean because he doesn't want to fly off the 'edge' and then be replaced by one of those stupid robots as part of the world wide conspiracy.
Ask any airliner pilot and you will have the correct answer.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnas"Ask any airliner pilot" .... what, exactly?
Who cares anyway.
Ask any airliner pilot and you will have the correct answer. Don't, and stay ignorant.
You are nothing but a troll having fun on others expenses.
If they can see the curvature of the earth from 35,000'?
Have you ever flown or been on a plane?
I have.
No curvature.
Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or delusional.
It is mathematically impossible to see curvature--- if there were any to see--- unless thousands of miles out.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @humyI hope you're not this clueless in your general life.
exactly. That is because the Earth isn't flat. Why do you make my point for me? Try again.
The reason the shorter distances are cited is because--- for the most part--- these are the ones most obvious to people, i.e., the ones they see in their every day lives.
Additionally, air density and other factors make it difficult to see much beyond the 50 mile mark, although there are notable exceptions, of course.
That being said, there are plenty of examples wherein distances in excess of 100 miles have been observed and recorded, all of them either of/from great heights.
And, true to the cognitive bias which underscores your lack of an open mind, you're missing the key factor here.
If even your source openly acknowledges that 8"×d² is accurate up to 100 miles and there exists a plethora of examples less than 100 miles, well, you're kinda having a bad day, don't you think?
Or do are you persuaded that since this blogger threw out a bunch of impressive-sounding formulas which purportedly prove that 8"×d² is not directly applicable to distances beyond 100 miles, it is possible to apply the same retroactively to distances below 100 miles?
If so, you are wrong, even by your own source.
Try again!
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhWho is talking about curvature? Not me. You seem desperate.
"Ask any airliner pilot" .... what, exactly?
If they can see the curvature of the earth from 35,000'?
Have you ever flown or been on a plane?
I have.
No curvature.
Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or delusional.
It is mathematically impossible to see curvature--- if there were any to see--- unless thousands of miles out.