D
Deleted member 40035
Guest
Core blimey! That's what they want you to think. If flat earthers are so convinced why don't they start editing wiki..
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveH
Striker
To be honest, I'm not as interested in theories like 9/11. It is possible, but unlikely they hid charges in the towers for god knows what reason. I can never prove that either way and it makes no difference to me. I can prove that we live on a globe in orbit around the sun with other planets and a moon going round us. I get baffled as to why anyone would claim otherwise, other than their need to feel specialI couldn't possibly tell you mate you will have to see for yourself if you're really that bothered and make your own mind up.
D
Deleted member 40035
Guest
They are possibly mentally ill but its something that needs to be looked at and sorted out. Lots of people have lots of opinions on conspiracy theories like 9/11 and flat earth.
SAFCOldie
Striker
I should really look into this more but there was something about a third building coming down that did not add up as well as some other anomalies.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Now let's be honest, how do you actually know that?
Apparently we are told the deepest drilling has been 7.5 miles and it apparently took 20 years to get to that depth and they could go no further.
How accurate that is is down to acceptance on what's told like everything else.
So bearing that in mind, how do you really know how deep the earth is?
Naturally you're basing it on the earth being a globe with a circumference of just over 24,000 miles. Tell me how you know all of this?
Last edited:
dangermows
Striker
It's not. Stick in tinfoiler.
DaveH
Striker
Two ways.
The first is just using pi. If you know the circumference of a circle or sphere then you can calculate the diameter. Many people have circumnavigated the globe, we have accurate maps. While I can’t prove the whole earth, I have driven, walked and cycled around a lot of the UK, and driven as far as the south of France. I have seen nothing to suggest the distances on maps are not accurate. Travels to a number of places in the Southern Hemisphere have been by plane, but the travel times are consistent with the milage.
The changing patterns of the stars are 100% consist with what you would see on a globle.
Second way is using the angle we observe polaris at. The angle of a star very high above the north pole on a globe should change as you move towards the equator, disappearing from view completely as you cross it - and it does. The angle you observe it at equals your latitude. If you measure that angle at one point then drive due south and measure again, basically your distance is the arc of a circle and the change in angle makes a triangle to the centre of the earth. Simple maths using pi gives you the radius. Any astronomer with an equatorial mount needs to make accurate measurements of the angle of polaris for it to work.
(actually the point is slightly off polaris but it is close enough for this example)
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Pi only gives you the circumference of a known circle by diameter.
How do you find the diameter of earth?
You could easily draw a circle with a compass and use pi to get an approximate. But that is a circle.
You could place a ball a small distance from you and observe the distance and diameter of the ball and use pi for that.
What do you have for earth?
Video and pictures which the pictures are admitted to be composites.
The reliance is basically on a lot of things and a lot of it comes down to shoehorning in what's required.
Now that might seem like I'm simply just saying stuff for the sake of it but I simply go right down to basics.
Start from the bottom and try and find out why the complexity is there or why it's needed to create the global mindset.
To you it's not complex because it's all been handed to you to marry up...and it will marry up, because it's been made to do that.
You mean many people in your belief, have. You don't know for sure.
And also you can circumnavigate a circle,
Or on a circle.
Realistically with a supposed spinning globe rotating on a 23.5 degree axis, should not be keeping perfect synch with a supposed star unless that star was locked to the actual supposed globe at a specific point.
It all depends on what the north pole actually is.
Is it the top of a ball or is it the centre of a circle on the up, where down into that circle would be the real south? Or even vice versa?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 40035
Guest
@Nukehasslefan do you class yourself as a conspiracy theorist?
DaveH
Striker
Read on, I answered that
My point is, there are distances in the earth that most of us have traveled and measured, and they are consistent with maps going back hundreds of years. There is no reason to doubt maps. If we assume from this we can trust distances marked on maps then we can trust the diameter by measuring. However I do give an alternate method below.
A grade bollocks, well done.
Take a football and sit under your living room light with it outstretched on your arm. Point the adapter hole upwards towards the light. The light is polaris, the hole is the north pole. Now place something on the floor directly below, for example a tin of beans or a rather sedate hamster. That can be the southern cross. Next imagine you are an ant running around the surface of the ball. At the north pole you look up (can ants look directly up? - imagine they can) and see polaris at 90 degrees above you. Now run a little further down the ball and imagine where polaris will look in relation to you - the angle decreases. As you hit the horizon, you can barely see polaris, as you cross it, you can no longer see it at all, but you can see your simulated southern cross.
Now pick up a plate and put a dot in the middle. Imagine you are an ant again running around the plate. Polaris is still directly above, but as you run around the plate, even right to the edge, polaris remains high. You never get to see your southern cross. The only real way to achieve this in way consistent as observed by more southern tips of places like South America, South Africa and Australia is to take poor Harry and stretch him out, wrapping him around like a hula hoop and sticking him to the ceiling. This extraordinary act of cruelty can be observed from the north pole.
None of what we can observe works in any sensible way in anything other than a globe model and one of the size that is claimed & demonstrated on a daily basis. There are not hoards of people coming out saying distances are wrong, planes do not fall out the sky because they ran out of fuel because the map lied, people laying roads do not run out of tarmac. Are you seriously suggesting the distances we travel are wrong? However tens of thousands of astronomers look to the skies on a regular basis. Modern GoTo telescopes require precise coordinates, so it is not a matter of swinging around a telescope until you spot something pretty, you measure with a very high position where anything is and also how it changes over the course of a night. Nobody has spotted anything inconsistent with a globe.
Your comment about 23.5 degrees makes no sense. Take your football again and point the adapter hole in any direction then spin the ball about an axis so that hole does not move. Whatever it points to remains in the same relative position. To anyone on the ball, that one point will remain stationary with everything else spinning around it (google star trails). The angle of 23.5 degrees is relative to the plane of the solar system. However much the earth was tilted, there would always be two single points above the axis of rotation that appear still. In the north, there is a fairly bright star almost on this point, which has been a convenient navigational tool. In the south there is nothing, but you can imagine a cross roughly crossing it.
I can sketch a diagram now of exactly how polaris, the zodiac constellations and the southern cross will appear and that works for a globe and that is consistent with what we observe. Can you produce a diagram now of a plate where the above works?
I missed this bit. This is very basic maths.
Pi does not give an approximate, it gives a highly accurate to within measurable tolerances. Admittedly to be accurate to thousands of decimal places then you need pi to thousands of decimal places too.
If you know the circumference you can find the diameter, it is rearranging one of the most basic equations a first year GCSE student will ever encounter. Just this morning my 8 year old asked some questions about an equation he spotted over my wife's shoulder, wondering why x was in the sum. He grasped the concept in minutes.
A sphere is a circle in 3d. Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter, but it is also a ratio of the various properties of a sphere such as circumference of the largest cross section, the surface area, the total area etc. Are you doubting the equations of basic geometry now?
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan
Winger
I'm classed as a conspiracy theorist for simply questioning stuff. I don't class myself as anything other than someone with questions for many topics in terms of forums.
BigPete
Striker
Probably still come back with some bollocks even though totally blew him out the water.
D
Deleted member 40035
Guest
Water doesn’t stick to flying balls, just because a little ant (that can look up) ran around a football doesn’t mean the earth is a globe
AlpineExile
Striker
What if someone doesn't have a hamster called Harry? What it they have one called Susie instead?Water doesn’t stick to flying balls, just because a little ant (that can look up) ran around a football doesn’t mean the earth is a globe
zwartekat
Striker
Well, not without falling out of the bottom.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
I'm not asking you to doubt maps.
The map of a supposed globe can easily be the map of a circle.
Logon or register to see this image
As above.
I absolutely disagree.
You see the spinning globe requires a mental amount of magicals tuff to make it work in how we perceive what's happening around us but the very tutored basics that kids learn seem plausible on face value, because nobody needs to or has the mindset to check or think alternatively.
If I never looked at stuff or did little experiments I would've just accepted it as what was told.
I simply can't now because I know in my mind it's not correct.
Most likely most people do not care to bother with earth in terms of wondering what it actually is. Most will potentially just accept it as told and that's fair enough.
As for planes not falling out of the sky. There's no need for that. They have set patterns to follow. Look at the flight patterns. Zig zagging to each destination.
Do their navigation equipment follow the supposed curve and if so, what is it they use?
No. I'm suggesting the distances we travel are not around a globe but around a circle.
Anyone can lay in bed and have a rotating light going around their ceiling. They can watch lights that mimic what they're told are stars and what not, all moving around their room.
Places with domes have shows that show what they call planets and stars and what not in a so called planetarium but it's all viewed by people on the ground via the light source/holographic images coming from the ground, not outside the dome.
You don;t need to sketch anything. I can see how the earth's supposed to work with stars and suns and planets and stuff we're told they are. It's all laid out on a plate and if I wasn't of a mind to question, I'd accept it.
But I do question it.
It's still an approximate regardless. It is not a definitive.
However I have zero need to argue this. I can accept pi, I'm just saying it applies to a circle just as easily so is no argument for a global proof..
Nothing to do with doubting basic equations for earth. It's what's used for the stuff we can't really calculate but are led to believe we can.
AlpineExile
Striker
So you think that your flat Earth has a bulge in the middle of it, starting at around the 'equator' and rising up to a peak at 'the North Pole'?
D
Deleted member 40035
Guest
Looks like a roulette table.
What is interesting that no matter how much evidence and hard proven facts you show a conspiracy theorist they ABSOLUETLY will not change their minds. Now why is that? Its a bit like people believing in gods without any evidence at all.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
It's very possible.
Maybe they came to a conclusion that the theory they were coaxed into believing was not a truth or showed far too much discrepancy so they started to look for alternatives.
And maybe they're not for turning back.
Last edited:
