Is Earth round or flat ?

[worgeordie]

Well I have been around it a few times and never once fell off , so I am sure it's round.

 

 

regards worgeordie

[parallelman]

Since the Flat Earth community denied a 24 hour Sun in Antarctica because this was an impossible phenomenon on a Flat Eath. Both Flat Esrthers and Globers recently witnessed the 24 hour Sun in Antarctica proving that the Eath is not flat. Flat Earthers are now scrambling around to debunk it including ALL members of the adventure are lying. They are now turning on ach other claiming 'this & that'.Truth is that Flat Earth is now just a cult of nonsense and will ignore anything that shows the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

[rattlesnake]

6 hours ago, parallelman said:

Since the Flat Earth community denied a 24 hour Sun in Antarctica because this was an impossible phenomenon on a Flat Eath. Both Flat Esrthers and Globers recently witnessed the 24 hour Sun in Antarctica proving that the Eath is not flat. Flat Earthers are now scrambling around to debunk it including ALL members of the adventure are lying. They are now turning on ach other claiming 'this & that'.Truth is that Flat Earth is now just a cult of nonsense and will ignore anything that shows the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

 

It was not denied but skeptically questioned as far as I know. A 24-hour Antarctic Sun can be explained on a fixed, level plane, as explained by this guy for example:

 

 

[Yellowtail]

The Earth is neither flat nor spherical. 

[rattlesnake]

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The Earth is neither flat nor spherical. 

 

And therefore, what does a rational mind infer regarding the "Blue Marble" pictures produced over the years, from the Apollo missions to NASA's various publications?

[Will B Good]

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

And therefore, what does a rational mind infer regarding the "Blue Marble" pictures produced over the years, from the Apollo missions to NASA's various publications?

 

That it is almost spherical.

[Yellowtail]

29 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

And therefore, what does a rational mind infer regarding the "Blue Marble" pictures produced over the years, from the Apollo missions to NASA's various publications?

 

A rational mind that did or did not pass high school geometry? 

[rattlesnake]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

A rational mind that did or did not pass high school geometry? 

 

Both. I can sense "too vast for the eye to grasp" explanations coming…

[Hummin]

My earth doesn't disappoint me, always at time and no mistakes with the 100% secured system to make us think the earth is something it is not. Not one pixel wrong this time either, except my lousy phone camera

 

 

 

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Both.

 

 

Ooooo...Schrodinger !!

 

The Vet to Mr Schrodinger, who is sat in the waiting room........Well Mr Schrodinger, regarding your cat.....I have some good news and I have some bad news.......

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

My earth doesn't disappoint me, always at time and no mistakes with the 100% secured system to make us think the earth is something it is not. Not one pixel wrong this time either, except my lousy phone camera

 

 

 

 

Evidence if you ever needed it......flat as a pancake.....555

 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

Evidence if you ever needed it......flat as a pancake.....555

 

 

Which of course is no flatter than it is round. 

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Which of course is no flatter than it is round. 

Unless it extends to infinity...???

[rattlesnake]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

My earth doesn't disappoint me, always at time and no mistakes with the 100% secured system to make us think the earth is something it is not. Not one pixel wrong this time either, except my lousy phone camera

 

 

 

 

Be wary of your lying eyes, though 

 

Behind this apparent soothing calm lays the "scientific" chaos: we are actually shooting through space at 450,000 mph while circling this beautiful Sun at 66,600 mph and rotating on our axis at 1,000 mph… The mysteries and intricacies of the ("scientifically" explained) universe!

[rattlesnake]

I see the "crazy cult conspiracy" side is gaining traction:

 

I doubt there would have been over 14% of "flats" a few years ago. As I said earlier in this thread, the Overton window is shifting quickly on this issue, and I think that is ultimately the most important aspect of it.

 

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Be wary of your lying eyes, though 

 

Behind this apparent soothing calm lays the "scientific" chaos: we are actually shooting through space at 450,000 mph while circling this beautiful Sun at 66,600 mph and rotating on our axis at 1,000 mph… The mysteries and intricacies of the ("scientifically" explained) universe!

Everything I have seen so far make me believe, and I have no reasons to doubt proven science. Neither I am smart enough to prove them wrong, since I'm poorly equipped with only 123 in IQ which only make me around 7% of the population on earth.

 

 

[parallelman]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

 

It was not denied but skeptically questioned as far as I know. A 24-hour Antarctic Sun can be explained on a fixed, level plane, as explained by this guy for example:

 

 

You are not correct. I didn't want to 'name names' as it were, previously but since you seem unaware of the standard flat earth model claims, I will do so. Here are two among many FE's who categorically denied the 24 hour Sun in Antarctica; Nathan Oakley and Eric Dubet. These are both well known FE's. There are others. You can find their denial directly from their websites or from GE's debunking FE. The refraction for an apparent Sun on FE has long been debunked, partly by FE's themselves. FE refraction claims would also produce and require other effects (like a second Sun reflected from the 'dome' around the FE) which are not seen in reality.

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Be wary of your lying eyes, though 

 

Behind this apparent soothing calm lays the "scientific" chaos: we are actually shooting through space at 450,000 mph while circling this beautiful Sun at 66,600 mph and rotating on our axis at 1,000 mph… The mysteries and intricacies of the ("scientifically" explained) universe!

The Earth's orbit of the Sun is not a circle. 

[rattlesnake]

3 minutes ago, parallelman said:

You are not correct. I didn't want to 'name names' as it were, previously but since you seem unaware of the standard flat earth model claims, I will do so. Here are two among many FE's who categorically denied the 24 hour Sun in Antarctica; Nathan Oakley and Eric Dubet. These are both well known FE's. There are others. You can find their denial directly from their websites or from GE's debunking FE. The refraction for an apparent Sun on FE has long been debunked, partly by FE's themselves. FE refraction claims would also produce and require other effects (like a second Sun reflected from the 'dome' around the FE) which are not seen in reality.

 

Thanks, I was not aware that they had categorically denied it (I don't actually follow these guys too much). I think you are referring to Eric Dubay… I will check their claims out.

 

Ultimately, though, I will reiterate that the various phenomenons surrounding the Sun and its perceived movements, whether we understand them or not, do not change the inconsistencies and concerns raised regarding the heliocentric model. Claiming otherwise is, in my view, a logical fallacy.

[Will B Good]

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Be wary of your lying eyes, though 

 

Behind this apparent soothing calm lays the "scientific" chaos: we are actually shooting through space at 450,000 mph while circling this beautiful Sun at 66,600 mph and rotating on our axis at 1,000 mph… The mysteries and intricacies of the ("scientifically" explained) universe!

 

Bearing in mind all these speeds are relative to some other object or frame of reference....there is no absolute motion in Einsteinian mechanics as there is no absolute space.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Thanks, I was not aware that they had categorically denied it (I don't actually follow these guys too much). I think you are referring to Eric Dubay… I will check their claims out.

 

Ultimately, though, I will reiterate that the various phenomenons surrounding the Sun and its perceived movements, whether we understand them or not, do not change the inconsistencies and concerns raised regarding the heliocentric model. Claiming otherwise is, in my view, a logical fallacy.

I do not believe there is any significant number of people that believe the Earth is flat, but if the meetings are free, have decent refreshments and easy women, I'm in.... 

[Will B Good]

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Thanks, I was not aware that they had categorically denied it (I don't actually follow these guys too much). I think you are referring to Eric Dubay… I will check their claims out.

 

Ultimately, though, I will reiterate that the various phenomenons surrounding the Sun and its perceived movements, whether we understand them or not, do not change the inconsistencies and concerns raised regarding the heliocentric model. Claiming otherwise is, in my view, a logical fallacy.

 

 

Such as?

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not believe there is any significant number of people that believe the Earth is flat, but if the meetings are free, have decent refreshments and easy women, I'm in.... 

I would rather become Christian or Muslim for the women, than an flat earther, but I do not have to do any of those extremities to get women wherever I am at 😉

[rattlesnake]

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

FE refraction claims would also produce and require other effects (like a second Sun reflected from the 'dome' around the FE) which are not seen in reality.

 

Incorrect, there is plenty of footage of a visible "second Sun".

 

 

[rattlesnake]

9 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

Such as?

 

Such as those already discussed here, e.g. a level plane visible at 120,000 feet when "science" says a curve is visible at 35,000 feet (so far, the only explanation I have been offered is that a convex lens was used, but I have already retorted that this is impossible to do consistently on a video) or the constellations being visible at the same spot for the past 3,000 years (so far, the only explanation I have been given is this is due to the vastness of the distances involved and other convoluted notions involving the unfathomable scale of the universe and the like), or the fact that numerous pilots claim the surface of the Earth is actually flat and that they never need to compensate for the curve when flying.

 

There are more, I might post them when I have a few minutes of spare time.

[Yellowtail]

On a clear day, you see the top of the mast/superstructure first as a ship gets closer...

[rattlesnake]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

On a clear day, you see the top of the mast/superstructure first as a ship gets closer...

 

Zoom in with a telescope and you will see the entire ship. Conversely, a ship sailing away will disappear, not because it falls below the curve but because of the vanishing point, an elementary perspective phenomenon which causes the naked eye to lose sight of distant objects. Here too, zoom in with a telescope and your vanished ship will reappear.

[parallelman]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Thanks, I was not aware that they had categorically denied it (I don't actually follow these guys too much). I think you are referring to Eric Dubay… I will check their claims out.

 

Ultimately, though, I will reiterate that the various phenomenons surrounding the Sun and its perceived movements, whether we understand them or not, do not change the inconsistencies and concerns raised regarding the heliocentric model. Claiming otherwise is, in my view, a logical fallacy.

Yes, Eric Dubay; wasn't sure of the spelling because I have seen both used.

Perhaps you might expand on the 'inconsistencies and concerns' about the heliocentric Solar Sysytem. Many FE's say that the planets and stars are fake and that there is only a dome-like firmament and as such completly denies just about everything science based. In this stance there aren't inconsistencies just denial of science. Is this the model that you subscribe to? Do you subscribe to in the'infinite plane' model? If not perhaps you might say which model you do subscribe to.

[save the frogs]

Has anyone addressed the question: "If the earth is flat, why would they be hiding it from us?"

 

Does it have to do with God .... or what ??

 

Thanks in advance. 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

11 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Has anyone addressed the question: "If the earth is flat, why would they be hiding it from us?"

 

Does it have to do with God .... or what ??

 

Thanks in advance. 

 

 

 

I really recommend watching Heliosorcery (1h40), it will give you some essential information regarding the ideological basis of heliocentrism.