Is Earth round or flat ?

[dinsdale]

35 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Hey Din...you misfired and quoted the wrong guy in your response here...ME. As @rattlesnake so kindly and promptly pointed out earlier.

 

 

My apologies.

 

[Will B Good]

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

No, I'm talking about a working model of a globe around which water is uniformly held to the surface.

 

 

 

As the water remains on the Earth due to gravity......and gravity requires huge amounts of mass (the mass of the earth) to exert any reasonably sized force......how "on Earth" do you imagine a model might replicate that.

 

What is the obsession with models? .....I think you mean simulate.....modelling is used to try and explain......simulation is used to confirm the strength or otherwise of a theory.

 

Black holes, neutron stars, supernovas.......do you imagine these are all modelled/simulated here on Earth?

[Free the 115]

Rough guess is that 70% of the earth is water. 
None of the major oceans,  seas or rivers contain significant amounts of carbonation 

Ergo, the Earth is flat

[rattlesnake]

6 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

As the water remains on the Earth due to gravity......and gravity requires huge amounts of mass (the mass of the earth) to exert any reasonably sized force......how "on Earth" do you imagine a model might replicate that.

 

What is the obsession with models? .....I think you mean simulate.....modelling is used to try and explain......simulation is used to confirm the strength or otherwise of a theory.

 

Black holes, neutron stars, supernovas.......do you imagine these are all modelled/simulated here on Earth?

 

By "working model", I meant a small-scale reproduction of the basic principles and forces involved, as a demonstration.

 

For example, there is a guy called Joseph Hanvey who reproduces the movement of the midnight Sun over a model of a flat Earth, which demonstrates the feasability of the principle.

 

I know there is no way to reproduce the configuration of water bodies according to the heliocentric model, and by asking this rhetorical question, I merely wanted to recall that it is just a theory.

[Will B Good]

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

By "working model", I meant a small-scale reproduction of the basic principles and forces involved, as a demonstration.

 

For example, there is a guy called Joseph Hanvey who reproduces the movement of the midnight Sun over a model of a flat Earth, which demonstrates the feasability of the principle.

 

I know there is no way to reproduce the configuration of water bodies according to the heliocentric model, and by asking this rhetorical question, I merely wanted to recall that it is just a theory.

 

Absolutely everything is a theory......the ones adopted at any moment in time are the ones that best fit known facts/evidence.

 

Once a 'better' theory comes along, the old one is toast.

 

Newton's Laws of motion were the be all and end all for 250 odd years.....then Einstein popped up.

[rattlesnake]

14 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Absolutely everything is a theory......the ones adopted at any moment in time are the ones that best fit known facts/evidence.

 

Once a 'better' theory comes along, the old one is toast.

 

Newton's Laws of motion were the be all and end all for 250 odd years.....then Einstein popped up.

 

I certainly don't disagree with that.

[rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, dinsdale said:

You should do some research. SA Expeditions for example will get you to the South Pole. 90⁰ south. All you have to do is pay the money and prepare your gear.

 

 

 

 

I am not talking about the designated, allocated 1% of the territory, I am talking about free exploration of the remaining 99%. If any of these guys tried to go anywhere else than the designated 1%, they would not be allowed to. Only North Korea, to my knowledge, has similar restrictions.

 

You can justify and rationalise that any way you like (danger, wildlife protection, whatever), that's cool, but those are simply facts.

 

[dinsdale]

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I am not talking about the designated, allocated 1% of the territory, I am talking about free exploration of the remaining 99%. If any of these guys tried to go anywhere else than the designated 1%, they would not be allowed to. Only North Korea, to my knowledge, has similar restrictions.

 

You can justify and rationalise that any way you like (danger, wildlife protection, whatever), that's cool, but those are simply facts.

 

Sure these places are simply inaccessible. Reason being your chances of dying are high. Doesn't change the fact that anyone who has the money can venture to inland regions of Antarctica and the South Pole. Flerfs say you can't. Well the fact is you can. All the people who go there in summer will see is a 24 hour sun. Flerfs say this isn't possible. It's not just possible it's reality and it's realty because the earth is a rotating oblate speroid. I'm sorry but having any belief system IMHO defies reality. The flat earth belief is one of these systems of belief. It's believed by very few people, pushed by even fewer grifters and accepted as truth by the gullible. Bit like religion.

[DD86]

On 12/26/2024 at 5:02 PM, KannikaP said:

1 hour 42, you must be joking.

Sorry, it is sometimes hard to get yourself educated.

[rattlesnake]

18 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Sure these places are simply inaccessible. Reason being your chances of dying are high. Doesn't change the fact that anyone who has the money can venture to inland regions of Antarctica and the South Pole. Flerfs say you can't. Well the fact is you can. All the people who go there in summer will see is a 24 hour sun. Flerfs say this isn't possible. It's not just possible it's reality and it's realty because the earth is a rotating oblate speroid. I'm sorry but having any belief system IMHO defies reality. The flat earth belief is one of these systems of belief. It's believed by very few people, pushed by even fewer grifters and accepted as truth by the gullible. Bit like religion.

 

Heliocentrism is also a belief.

 

Flat-Earthers say you can't venture out of allocated spaces in Antarctica. Exactitude (as a professor I admired once said) is essential.

[dinsdale]

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Heliocentrism is also a belief.

 

Flat-Earthers say you can't venture out of allocated spaces in Antarctica. Exactitude (as a professor I admired once said) is essential.

No it's not. Science isn't a belief system. Again the Antarctic continent is a vey big and very extreme environment and is controlled by the treaty to keep it neutral, have no mining and no military presence. You keep throwing comments back yet you haven't addressed my posts about people/civilians can go to the south pole and there is a 24hr sun in the Antarctic summer. Here's a direct question. Is there a 24 hour sun in Antarctica in it's summer? This is a Yes/No question. a) Yes, there is. b) No, there isn't. It's not possible. What's your answer. a) or b)?

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

No it's not. Science isn't a belief system. Again the Antarctic continent is a vey big and very extreme environment and is controlled by the treaty to keep it neutral, have no mining and no military presence. You keep throwing comments back yet you haven't addressed my posts about people/civilians can go to the south pole and there is a 24hr sun in the Antarctic summer. Here's a direct question. Is there a 24 hour sun in Antarctica in it's summer? This is a Yes/No question. a) Yes, there is. b) No, there isn't. It's not possible. What's your answer. a) or b)?

There is midnight sun north and south of 65°, do not need to go to the poles to experience midnight sun. 

[rattlesnake]

39 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

No it's not. Science isn't a belief system. Again the Antarctic continent is a vey big and very extreme environment and is controlled by the treaty to keep it neutral, have no mining and no military presence. You keep throwing comments back yet you haven't addressed my posts about people/civilians can go to the south pole and there is a 24hr sun in the Antarctic summer. Here's a direct question. Is there a 24 hour sun in Antarctica in it's summer? This is a Yes/No question. a) Yes, there is. b) No, there isn't. It's not possible. What's your answer. a) or b)?

 

"Science" and its political, ideological and cultural implications is absolutely a belief system, c.f. the post-Reformation era previously discussed here, and the role of the Jesuits in changing the "education" system in favour of heliocentrism (Copernicus was merely a pawn in this process).

 

Furthermore, the Covid crisis demonstrated that social media "influencers" are often mere prostitutes which can be bought to push any message. So out of principle, I am wary of overnight celebrities such as Jeran Campanella, endorsed by the establishment media with a unilateral message repeated ad nauseam. I had never heard of him before and he is not a prominent Flat-Earth figure.

 

Regarding your question, the answer, as is often the case, is nuanced. I can't give you a "yes" or "no" answer at this point.

 

I honestly don't know if there is a 24-hour Sun in Antarctica. What I do know is that there appears to be strange inconsistencies in the Final Experiment footage, which I will share here if they are demonstrated. And most importantly, even if there is a 24-hour Sun in Antarctica, it doesn't change the concerns and issues discussed so far in this thread, and claiming it does is a logical fallacy. A 24-hour Sun works perfectly on a level plane model.

[rattlesnake]

37 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

No it's not. Science isn't a belief system. Again the Antarctic continent is a vey big and very extreme environment and is controlled by the treaty to keep it neutral, have no mining and no military presence. You keep throwing comments back yet you haven't addressed my posts about people/civilians can go to the south pole and there is a 24hr sun in the Antarctic summer. Here's a direct question. Is there a 24 hour sun in Antarctica in it's summer? This is a Yes/No question. a) Yes, there is. b) No, there isn't. It's not possible. What's your answer. a) or b)?

 

"you haven't addressed my posts about people/civilians can go to the south pole"

 

Yes, I have and will not repeat it.

[dinsdale]

13 minutes ago, Hummin said:

There is midnight sun north and south of 65°, do not need to go to the poles to experience midnight sun. 

Yep. Not possible on any flat earth model. The north is possible but not the "south".

[Hummin]

20 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

"Science" and its political, ideological and cultural implications is absolutely a belief system, c.f. the post-Reformation era previously discussed here, and the role of the Jesuits in changing the "education" system in favour of heliocentrism (Copernicus was merely a pawn in this process).

 

Furthermore, the Covid crisis demonstrated that social media "influencers" are often mere prostitutes which can be bought to push any message. So out of principle, I am wary of overnight celebrities such as Jeran Campanella, endorsed by the establishment media with a unilateral messaged repeated ad nauseam. I had never heard of him before and he is not a prominent Flat-Earth figure.

 

Regarding your question, the answer, as is often the case, is nuanced. I can't give you a "yes" or "no" answer at this point.

 

I honestly don't know if there is a 24-hour Sun in Antarctica. What I do know is that there appears to be strange inconsistencies in the Final Experiment footage, which I will share here if they are demonstrated. And most importantly, even if there is a 24-hour Sun in Antarctica, it doesn't change the concerns and issues discussed so far in this thread, and claiming it does is a logical fallacy. A 24-hour Sun works perfectly on a level plane model.

One thing to understand is how we act like a tribe, and try to pull in same direction for everyone's best. Misfits do not cope ith that, and try to create alternative truths, and collect echo chambers! 

 

It is not even a religion, it just mental. Anyway, some will say religion is mental as well far right and far left. Something I'm common do every outposts have. 

[Hummin]

An interesting article

 

Are Republicans and Conservatives More Likely to Believe Conspiracy Theories?

 

A sizable literature tracing back to Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style (1964) argues that Republicans and conservatives are more likely to believe conspiracy theories than Democrats and liberals

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9307120/

[rattlesnake]

22 minutes ago, Hummin said:

One thing to understand is how we act like a tribe, and try to pull in same direction for everyone's best. Misfits do not cope ith that, and try to create alternative truths, and collect echo chambers! 

 

It is not even a religion, it just mental. Anyway, some will say religion is mental as well far right and far left. Something I'm common do every outposts have. 

 

I say this respectfully, but I think this is a naive viewpoint. Throughout history, there have always been small groups of power who will endeavour for their personal interest, with little consideration for the ordinary masses.

[Hummin]

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I say this respectfully, but I think this is a naive viewpoint. Throughout history, there have always been small groups of power who will endeavour for their personal interest, with little consideration for the ordinary masses.

Throughout the history, things have evolved to be better for most people in the western world, but at the moment we are at a tipping point where everything starts to get ridiculous, and people lose faith in the reality we living in.

[dinsdale]

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

"you haven't addressed my posts about people/civilians can go to the south pole"

 

Yes, I have and will not repeat it.

24 hour sun. Yes or no?

 

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Throughout the history, things have evolved to be better for most people in the western world, but at the moment we are at a tipping point where everything starts to get ridiculous, and people lose faith in the reality we living in.

Sadly the reality we live in is not so good and also sadly there are very many people whose reality in their own minds doesn't match reality. Reality is the earth isn't flat. No one has proved it to be so. ZERO evidence. Why? Because it ISN'T FLAT. IT ISN'T a NASA conspiracy. IT ISN'T the Freemasons. It's a con pushed by grifters to make money and believed by the gullible. 24 hour sun in Antarctica. That's it. It happens. Can't happen on the Gleason map. The grifters and their flock are now trying to debunk actual footage of this being released by The Final Experiment. 

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

24 hour sun. Yes or no?

 

I think the Sun has been "around" for more than 24 hours!

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

I think the Sun has been "around" for more than 24 hours!

 

And that's flat!

[rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, dinsdale said:

24 hour sun. Yes or no?

 

 

For the purpose of this conversation, I’m going to answer yes. And, as I stated previously, this does not negate the level plane model.

 

I’m sure you are familiar with the notion of “apparent Sun” vs. “actual Sun”, which, through a phenomenon called refraction, causes the Sun to appear elsewhere than where it actually is. It is commonly explained under the heliocentric model.

 

 

This phenomenon also exists under the flat Earth model, which posits that the level plane is surmounted by a firmament dome. A Sun refraction could be seen rotating counterclockwise against the dome, producing the impression of a 24-hour Sun.

This guy, Joseph Hanvey, has produced a working model of how that works.

 

 

And before you post your laughing emoji, remember that you believe that water sticks to a spinning ball circling the Sun while shooting through space.

[rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Sadly the reality we live in is not so good and also sadly there are very many people whose reality in their own minds doesn't match reality. Reality is the earth isn't flat. No one has proved it to be so. ZERO evidence. Why? Because it ISN'T FLAT. IT ISN'T a NASA conspiracy. IT ISN'T the Freemasons. It's a con pushed by grifters to make money and believed by the gullible. 24 hour sun in Antarctica. That's it. It happens. Can't happen on the Gleason map. The grifters and their flock are now trying to debunk actual footage of this being released by The Final Experiment. 

 

I am open to honest and rational refutations of my belief. You are not. Who, of you and I, is a cultist?

[rattlesnake]

Weekend question:

 

If the Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph as it revolves around the Sun at 66.600 mph while the Sun shoots through space at 450,000 mph, why haven't the constellations changed in thousands of years?

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Weekend question:

 

If the Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph as it revolves around the Sun at 66.600 mph while the Sun shoots through space at 450,000 mph, why haven't the constellations changed in thousands of years?

 

 

It could be explained to you, but it can't be understood for you !!... 

 

At risk of contracting the famous Mark Twain quote...   I'll give a very brief explanation, though I'm sure you can't seriously believe what you write, instead you are playing a 'devils advocate troll'... 

 

The constellations appear relatively unchanged over thousands of years despite Earth's motions because of the vast distances between stars and the scale of the universe. Here are the main reasons.....

 

Vast Distances: Stars are so far away that Earth's and the Sun's motions barely affect their apparent positions.

 

Relative Motion: Stars also move, but their shifts are tiny from our perspective over thousands of years.

 

Short Observation Time: Human history is too short to notice significant changes in constellations.

 

Local Motion: Earth's and the Sun's speeds are insignificant compared to the cosmic scale.

 

Slow Changes: Precession and star motion cause small shifts, but constellations only change noticeably over millennia or more.

 

 

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

And before you post your laughing emoji, remember that you believe that water sticks to a spinning ball circling the Sun while shooting through space.

 

 

Water doesn’t “stick” to a spinning ball in space due to belief or magic but rather because of gravity, and the gravity on earth exceeds the centrifugal inertia.

 

 

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I am open to honest and rational refutations of my belief. You are not. Who, of you and I, is a cultist?

 

Somewhat difficult when your beliefs are irrational...  we get dragged down the rabbit hole and the Mark Twain quote springs back to minds.... "Never argue with a... "

 

 

10 pages on this thread and I've avoided posting because I fail to believe that someone can truly believe that the Earth is not spherical and for some reason some posters such as yourself are getting a trollish kick out of this... 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

56 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Vast Distances: Stars are so far away that Earth's and the Sun's motions barely affect their apparent positions.

 

Relative Motion: Stars also move, but their shifts are tiny from our perspective over thousands of years.

 

Short Observation Time: Human history is too short to notice significant changes in constellations.

 

Local Motion: Earth's and the Sun's speeds are insignificant compared to the cosmic scale.

 

Slow Changes: Precession and star motion cause small shifts, but constellations only change noticeably over millennia or more.

 

 

This is nonsensical.

 

 

[rattlesnake]

59 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I fail to believe that someone can truly believe that the Earth is not spherical

 

And here lies the gist of the issue. Belief.

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Somewhat difficult when your beliefs are irrational...  we get dragged down the rabbit hole and the Mark Twain quote springs back to minds.... "Never argue with a... "

 

So far, my beliefs have not been rationally refuted. I recall derogatory language, lots of laughing emojis and lying by omission.

 

I encourage you to write the entire Twain quote.