A Flat Earth not Round ...?

[Selkie]

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)
If the earth is flat, then is it a spinning disc of some kind? How thick would such a disc be?

Because clearly there are mountains, and we can drill into the earth quite a way, even under the sea floor, and magma comes from somewhere. So it must be pretty thick.

I can answer those.

In the flat earth model , Earth does not spin it is stationary and geocentric. As to its limits or depth no one knows. The mystery is Antarctica a barrier of ice that makes exploration difficult to say the least. Also according to the Antarctic Treaty independent exploration is no longer allowed, only supervised scientific expeditions along specific routes.

The deepest hole drilled was in Russia and that was 8 miles deep, so it did not even get through the crust. What is below that and regarding the Earths core is simply a matter of speculation and theory as is much of science upon closer examination.

But where does magma come from in the FE paradigm?

As far as i know no one knows. As no one has drilled deep enough to know i would also say that in the ball earth it is also a mystery as i like to call it, or a theory among scientists.

It is interesting how theories turn into accepted facts with time.

This quote comes to mind.

I

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.


Joseph Goebbels

Well, magma is a physical fact, and the spherical earth explains where it comes from. If the FE paradigm can't explain where magma comes from, then they have a really big problem on their hands.

There are anomalies in both models from my investigations. It even seems that there are more anomalies in the ball earth theory.

That is my point. Of course ball earth scientists explain EVERTHING. They have to be all knowing in their modern day religion of scientism.

Flat Earthers are not mainstrem, neither do the have funding of trillions of $ like NASA and mainstream science, what do you expect.

I said this before Eric Dubay has published for free pdf d/l 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball. He claims that everything in there is scientific fact. What i want to see is someone take on that document and debunk it point by point. It seems that nobody on this forum can do that. Even science with its budget of millions is not taking it on. Maybe someone knows someone who can do it, without referring to scientific equations that the lay person does not understand. I like this quote.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

The answer to many of those points is 'gravity' another theory, that has more magical properties than scientific. A force strong enough to keep the oceans fixed to the Earth on a ball spinning at 1000mph, and weak enough for fish to swim in them unhindered. Strong enough to hold the atmosphere and Moon in place and at the same time weak enough for insects to fly against the spin.

Why do those who do not accept a flat earth model do their own investigation instead of leaving it flat earthers to prove it for them? Thats just plain laziness, though it does not stop the many uninformed opinions.

Or maybe the spherical earth scientists can explain everything because the earth is actually spherical?

[loveoflife]

I had to post this one very intriguing.

This video is well worth watching if you dont watch it to the end you are definitely missing something.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=K9RF9lLBIMs

How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun, and still correctly measure time? Not to mention be used as late as the 19th century to correct mechanical clocks… link

[DeDukshyn]

How do flights get from Sydney to Santiago non-stop in less time than it takes to get from Sydney to Vancouver? If the earth is flat this needs to be explained rationally ... If it cannot be explained with the flat earth model then it isn't likely a reality, unlike the reality that a flight can and does get from Sydney to Santiago, non-stop on a plane that cannot fly more than 13,600 kms without refueling, in less time than the same plane flying from Sydney to Vancouver? How is this possible if the flat earth model is true?

Back in my previous example, the flight would be about 26,000 kms from Santiago to Sydney if the flat earth model were true -- this is incorrect, because the flight doesn't fly over north America does it? It doesn't. In fact it flies close to Antarctica. The flight from Buenos Aries, Argentina to Sydney does fly over Antarctica. In the flat earth model, this flight would be have to be represented by the plane flying along the very edge of the flat earth, so that it may cross the land of Antarctica. Perilously close to hitting the edge of the invisible dome that encompasses the flat earth even. With some simple extrapolation, we can then conclude that this flight must be closer to 40,000 kms - not 26,000.

Here is the polar flight path from Sydney to Buenos Aries (right-most map), and my "pathing" that out on the flat earth map, so we can see the distance that is covered with the flat earth model:





Here is a written account of a person who took this flight and took photos along the way as he flew over Antarctica: http://travel.stackexchange.com/ques...ver-antarctica

So (assuming the flat earth model is true for a moment) it is about a 40,000 km flight from Buenos Aries to Sydney, and about 13,000 km flight from Vancouver to Sydney. The map confirms that this MUST be true, doesn't it? That flight MUST be 40,000 kms, else the flat earth map is wrong. Yes or no?

The cruising speed of a 747 passenger jumbo jet is about 900 km/h give or take a little depending on the variant. Let's set aside the obviously glaring fact that a 747 can only go ~13,500 kms without refueling for a moment and work out this 40,000 km flight time. 40,000 kms @ 900km/h = a 44.5 hour long flight. Yes 44.5 hours.

Now let's consider the fuel the 747 can hold; it would be required to stop TWO times during that flight.

So if the flat earth model is true, that flight would take 44.5 hours, require two stops for fuel, when it could simply avoid the dangerous "Antarctic" regions, avoid giving people a potential glimpse of the "edge of the earth", stay the danger of almost clipping the edge of the "dome", etc. simply by flying straight from one destination to the other and shaving off about 13,000 kms.

- So why does this flight take this route?
- Why does the plane not stop twice for refuelling?
- How does a 40,000 km flight only take 15 hours and 12 minutes, in a plane that can only fly 900km/h?
- Why would the flight path take the longest possible, most dangerous route possible, when there are proven safe and far shorter alternatives?
-Why does this person who took the flight, and has photos to prove he was over Antarctica, suggest it as a great route? Did he not notice the 44.5 hour long flight? Was he sleeping for both stops of fuel in the middle of the ocean on floating refueling platforms?

If those answers can't be produced with reason and logic that amounts to proof, flat earth cannot be true. This type of reasoning is called deduction or deductive reasoning. This type of reasoning appears absent from flat earthers and various other "believers" such as religious fanatics. It can be the discerning person's best friend. If you really want to know how to whittle into the truth of things (any thing) one must employ this method of reasoning. Read about it here, and learn it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

--------------------------------------

Airlines take their safety seriously. The reason why commercial airlines don't fly directly over Antarctica is 1) no flights are needed to go directly over while connecting any 2 destinations, and a lesser but still extremely valid reason 2) Due to safety. There are very strong turbulent winds there, and if a pilot has a choice, they avoid those conditions. If the conditions are persistent, the flight path avoids those areas. If a plane were to crash in the Antarctic, no chance of rescue, so the paths don't go there. In the arctic, people live there, military has bases there, and between Canada and Russia, there are plenty of people close enough to make rescue missions easy.

--------------------------------------

I agree that Antarctica is mysterious and is generally desired to be kept off limits by the militaries of the world. I believe that Antarctica was once not all that long ago, not covered in ice and not frozen, and possibly not where it is today. I believe there are remnants of an ancient advanced civilization there, and the great cataclysm left it in it's current place / state. I believe the remnants contain very advanced technology.

I believe the secrecy is to deny humanity's true history, the same as the secrecy regarding the moon, the pyramids, a plethora of ancient artifacts, and passed down indigenous knowledge (a la Credo Mutwa, Inca / Aztech / Maya), that all point to an advanced ancient civilization, all which have had suppressant effects applied to them. Religions also supress this knowledge - it is partly what they were designed for.

The controlling powers of this world are fully within the religions, and the governments, and a lot of the archeology / paleontology circles. They control all three points and thus have a firm hand on supressing the knowledge on this ancient civilization.

None of this indicates the earth is flat.

The flat earth model is simply a map, a different type of projection so that you can get all continents into a round shape, except Antarctica, but no one cares about Antarctica because no humans live there and is uninhabitable for the most part. The UN uses that map, because it fits neatly into a logo, covers all the continents and countries where humans live, and indicates the UN's desired power over humanity.

[Selkie]

Posted by loveoflife (here)
I had to post this one very intriguing.

This video is well worth watching if you dont watch it to the end you are definitely missing something.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=K9RF9lLBIMs

How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun, and still correctly measure time? Not to mention be used as late as the 19th century to correct mechanical clocks… link

Sundials are latitude-specific; they have to be adjusted to one's latitude.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by loveoflife (here)
I had to post this one very intriguing.

This video is well worth watching if you dont watch it to the end you are definitely missing something.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=K9RF9lLBIMs

How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun, and still correctly measure time? Not to mention be used as late as the 19th century to correct mechanical clocks… link

I watched the video to the end. It doesn't indicate a flat earth at all, just an ancient and relatively accurate sundial in India. in the 14th century, how did mechanical clocks keep their time? Do you know how? With a pendulum of some sort, and a resistant force of some sort - either a spring, or a weight. The interval of a second was the smallest unit a clock was ever tuned to - one pendulum swing per second. Now imagine trying to tune this swing to exactly a second. It cannot be 1 millisecond off, or the time will drift. If you are even one millisecond off (which such accuracy was likely unheard of in those times, I am being generous), your clock is off by 1 whole second every 16.666 minutes, or off by 83 seconds each day; after one week, your clock is off by over nine and a half minutes, after one month, it is off by about 40 minutes, and again I am being REALLY generous on the accuracy of old clocks. So what can we possibly use to re-calibrate a mechanical clock before crystal timing? What is the only option? A sundial. So "no s**t Sherlock", they used to use sundials to correct drift, or to reset when one forgot to rewind the spring or reset the weights. It has NOTHING to do with a flat earth.

You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

[DeDukshyn]

Again, all we are seeing is evidence of an advanced ancient civilization that has passed some of it's knowings of the "spherical" earth, and enabled the building of accurate sundials at specific latitudes. Thanks for pointing that out Selkie . In fact sundials are lending evidence the earth is NOT flat, when you really think about it

[Harley]

Well I'll say one thing

This thread sure turned into an exercise of critical thinking didn't it!

[Selkie]

Posted by Harley (here)
Well I'll say one thing

This thread sure turned into an exercise of critical thinking didn't it!

Not for everyone...

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Selkie (here)

Posted by Harley (here)
Well I'll say one thing

This thread sure turned into an exercise of critical thinking didn't it!

Not for everyone...

Well for me it was an exercise in practice of turning critical thinking into a verbal explanation (my mind doesn't think verbally) -- no guarantees on reception though unfortunately

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

In fact sundials are lending evidence the earth is NOT flat, when you really think about it

Yes, they are.



This is what Eratosthenes (who was a pretty smart dude) figured out over 2,250 years ago. He was aware that at noon on the summer solstice or the first day of summer, the Sun in the city of Syene passed directly overhead. Yet, on the same day in the city of Alexandria — some 5,000 stadia (c.570 miles) to the north — vertical objects cast a shadow of 7 degrees. If the Earth were flat, this observation can't be explained. Yet if the Earth were round, Eratosthenes reasoned, one could use this information to compute the Earth's circumference. (Which he did, remarkably accurately, even by modern standards.)

The relevance is that the sundial principle was used here, as well.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Yet, on the same day in the city of Alexandria — some 5,000 stadia (c.570 miles) to the north

PS: What I love about this story is the legend that Eratosthenes actually paid a man (a messenger runner) to pace the distance to measure it as accurately as possible.

(I guess whether this was easy money or not depends on how much he was paid! )

[aviators]

The FE topic is intriguing for some and amusing for others. Thanks to all members who have collaborated respectfully.
The "direct" southern airline flights say from Australia to South America according to the FE researchers don't exist.
See picture.

Most flights have connecting stops. This doubles the time of the trip. Hmm...
I'm sure someone could document one of these non stop flights. Maybe

Mark Sargent did a short video here on southern flight routes.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=A0FuO8lQV18

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by aviators (here)

The "direct" southern airline flights say from Australia to South America according to the FE researchers don't exist.

Well, 'the FE researchers' aren't very good!

Leaving tomorrow — is that okay? (Book your ticket, on Orbitz, here)



(Sydney to Santiago wasn't available. I assume flying from New Zealand will do, to make the point.)

[aviators]

sorry but I couldent book this flight. I'm not saying they don't list a direct flight.
If you research the flat earthers they say you can't book these direct flights.
In a sense a decoy of sorts. After all this is the biggest conspericy ever.

Contact airline to book
You must book this flight directly with the airline because we are unable to process the reservation request for one or more of the following reasons:

Flight departs in less than 6 hours.
Flight requires paper tickets and there's insufficient time to process and deliver the tickets before departure.
The airlines do not have ticketing agreements with each other.
The airline requires that reservations be made directly with its agents.
We are prohibited from selling flights to that destination country.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by aviators (here)
sorry but I couldent book this flight. I'm not saying they don't list a direct flight.
If you research the flat earthers they say you can't book these direct flights.
In a sense a decoy of sorts. After all this is the biggest conspericy ever.

Contact airline to book
You must book this flight directly with the airline because we are unable to process the reservation request for one or more of the following reasons:

Flight departs in less than 6 hours.
Flight requires paper tickets and there's insufficient time to process and deliver the tickets before departure.
The airlines do not have ticketing agreements with each other.

The airline requires that reservations be made directly with its agents.
We are prohibited from selling flights to that destination country.

Did you try doing your own research — rather than believe what you've read elsewhere — and change the dates? (Book this different one here: see below. Any dates will work as long as there's enough time to make the booking.)

Your problem was because the flight departs from New Zealand and the Earth is round and spinning, hence the time zone difference (work it out) — and the flight was just about to leave.

[loveoflife]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

Nice cop out, answer a question with a question.

[loveoflife]

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

Nice cop out, answer a question with a question.

I am not convinced.

I want scientific experimental evidence that the earth is moving, not theoretical mathematics, geometry or physics.

[aviators]

Thanks Bill for pointing these direct flights out.
I have noticed these before. With some more reseach we should
be able to prove these flights exist or NOT. Not just listings.
I'm sure someone could document one of these non stop flights. Maybe

Limited research has raised more questions for me.
The southern airline routes is key for debunking this whole FE argument. IMHO

Some tools are flight trackers.
Here's one. http://www.flightradar24.com/-29.76,-155.15/3

We should be able to track those direct flights that you listed. Right?
Significant research has been done by others already. But I'm NOT convinced yet.
This is just discovery.
Here's a short video on southern flight routes that disappear. Hmm..

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VmmjUhukRhU

[araucaria]

I want to make a couple of comments. The first is to do with proof: many people have a problem, not with a lack, but with a surfeit of proof; see this.

Posted by ulli (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)
You are right Agape, much of science is consensus politics, which is the downside to peer reviewing, and has two consequences: 1) funding is funneled to agenda-based or pointless research (the sex life of the fruit fly in the context of climate change would win on both counts) and 2) if you research anything else, you are automatically out of the mainstream, and therefore a discredited maverick. Mainstream scientists are often in business with probability rates against chance of one in twenty or less, but discredited mavericks will regularly do as well as that if not considerably better, but owing to their subject matter, nothing is ever deemed proven, although on a level playing field any one such would be considered conclusive or at the very least a valid basis justifying further inquiry.
Here is one example taken from Maurice Chatelain. It involves mathematical evidence drawn from forensic evidence – imprints in the soil of 76 UFO landings – collected by the French police all over France over a 25-day period late in 1954. Many of these sites were along parallel lines exactly 63 km apart, a multiple of 21 cm, the wavelength of hydrogen that is a universal yardstick. One scientist calculated the number of triangles formed between these points (70,300), measured them all and found 1864 isosceles triangles. This is an interesting number because 70,300 divided by 1864 comes to 264/7 or twelve times 22/7, the vulgar fraction value of Pi used by ancient pyramid builders. All the coordinates and figures were checked and validated on a computer by another – skeptical – scientist. In addition, four different samples of 76 random points were checked for the average number of isosceles triangles they produced: each time in the low 1600s: around 250 less.

What happens with examples like this is that they take one so far beyond coincidence that the mind boggles. It is not just one event that is being validated, but a whole concerted array of 76, and the proof of that concertation involves a much larger number of triangles that must have been calculated with considerable skill and precisely positioned with even more skill. This is typical of this type of phenomena. People’s eyes glaze over at the intricacy of all the numbers fitting together, the same as they do when the Great Pyramid is analyzed. For most people demanding proof, they are obviously getting turned off or dazzled out by too much of a good thing.

The only way to bring people round is positive individual experiences comparable to the NDE. It have to be one person at a time since there is probably too much fear of negative technology being used to perform a mass disclosure. And understandably so: we are talking about a population that has been seriously traumatized by unwelcome intrusion.

Herein lies the real problem, doesn't it?
But once a person decides to pursue this path just a little, and becomes enamoured with this incredible order
which seems to underlie everything at the macrocosm as well as the microcosm,
then to return to the old fascination with randomness and chaos becomes a challenge.

The second point is also taken from p.130 of Maurice Chatelain’s book. If we are not living on a sphere, it is impossible to make any sense of the following passage collating evidence from all parts of the globe; this gives it the status of a meta-analysis, thereby lending huge weight to the conclusions to be drawn from it, because they are derived from a vast body of data. Since that data relies on longitude and latitude, and hence the position of various cities on a sphere, as both measured in the past and confirmed in the present, we have conclusive evidence that not only is the Earth not flat, but this has been known for at least 6,000 years.

All units of measure in the distant past of our civilization had the same basic system in their foundations – all were determined from the exact dimensions of our planet Earth. Incredible as this may sound to the uninitiated, our ancestors derived their feet and inches from the length of one degree of latitude or longitude. Quite naturally they used the longitude and latitude at which they lived and that explains why there were so many different feet and other units of measurement derived from the local degrees.
The length of 1° of latitude varies from 110,567 m at the equator to 111,700 m at the pole, while one degree of longitude varies from zero at the pole to 111,321 m at the equator. These two basic units of longitude or latitude were divided by an appropriate round number to obtain a measurement of length that approximated the average natural dimension of a human foot, finger, hand, or forearm. The Semites expressed their units in their usual system of counting by 10, while the Sumerians registered theirs by counting by 12 or 60, and the Olmecs and the Mayas by counting to 20. But the basis for all those different calculations was the same – the true dimensions of Earth.

So the proof is pretty overwhelming – which brings us back to my first post. Overwhelming proof has never been a problem. However, if you are throwing out bathwater, watch out for flying babies. You cannot for example contend that the Earth is flat and at the same time defend things like forbidden archaeology, lost knowledge of ancient civilizations, and probably a great deal of other such things that are staples of sites like Avalon. In other words, anyone who is a member of the forum yet cannot agree on a number of its basic received ideas is probably trolling.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

Nice cop out, answer a question with a question.

Sundials do work on a globe earth, you have been indicating and linking resources that say they shouldn't. I want to examine that argument so I need to know why it shouldn't work before I can examine it, obviously. So, for the sake of truth finding and not turning a blind eye to potential evidence, I want to examine why it is said that a sundial shouldn't work on a sphere model earth.

How is that cop out? It is what is required if we are to examine this other piece of potential flat earth evidence. Or ... would you rather that not be examined in detail, and if so, why?