42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I would assume centripetal was meant or at least should have been.

40 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Well that doesn't exist either! - Centrifugal force is not a "real" physical force in the scientific sense but rather a fictitious or pseudo-force/belief

Well he was talking about an outward force from the middle so real or not centrifugal seems to be correct in terms of what one can assume was meant.

4 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Well he was talking about an outward force from the middle so real or not centrifugal seems to be correct in terms of what one can assume was meant.

Sorry, I thought he was talking about the pull that keeps satellites in orbit, my bad.

48 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Well he was talking about an outward force from the middle so real or not centrifugal seems to be correct in terms of what one can assume was meant.

FGS! There's no such outward force! what do you rthink would geerate it???? - did you ever study physics at school? Get someone to explain the "ball on a string tied to a pole". It actually obeys basic Newton's laws of physics, which, of course, are too much for the average conspiracy theorist. If you don't understand basic physics, how can you form an opinion?

Why should you never trust atoms?

On 4/15/2026 at 3:57 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

Must admit, the pics and video from/of the rocket were pretty poor. Of course they were deliberately poor. Wouldn't want to be caught out telling porkies would they?

A big nothing burger from a collapsing empire.

...and the burger you peddle has no meat.... just dressing.... so nobody buys it.

46 minutes ago, kwilco said:

FGS! There's no such outward force! what do you rthink would geerate it???? - did you ever study physics at school? Get someone to explain the "ball on a string tied to a pole". It actually obeys basic Newton's laws of physics, which, of course, are too much for the average conspiracy theorist. If you don't understand basic physics, how can you form an opinion?

You take things a bit seriously sometimes. You asked what the poster meant. I responded as such. Not my scientific opinion based on the comments of what it should be in actuality. As I said in my post that got this response. Because you asked.

It should be noted the poster's post was not a serious post in any case. Certainly not a scientific treatise that needs to be pulled apart. Maybe there is a different term - close to centrical - for what he had in mind but I thought that fit the bill based on his post.

By the way I did study physics up to the end of high school for what it's worth. Not at a high level. But not bad. More than the average Asean Now reader possibly.

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Certainly not a scientific treatise that needs to be pulled apart.

Read the OP – of course talking non-science is the basis for conspiracy theorists, and if you don't even have an elementary knowledge of physics, how can you be expected to have any kind of credibility? Someone trying to tell me the earth is flat and explaining with a force that cannot exisit or the moon landings were a hoax is displaying an education below that of an 11-year-old.

this is what happens if you let conspircy theorists get into government

https://scontent.flhr10-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/672681884_1522184716620189_2223774483820192657_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=13d280&_nc_ohc=iPOYunK95HwQ7kNvwFLu5Aa&_nc_oc=Adpvmi-ODiQqR4zT-2l-FPNjFuRK7JX1NSgMidGsaMLFjK6z3480m5LM7fPVWtrUgn1Q8q8MXPrInSHtMHmiqSTb&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr10-2.fna&_nc_gid=xrA3T8gxaK14aUaPt78lpQ&_nc_ss=7a3a8&oh=00_Af2fkSJckP7UtDZ2i0z5PxIQrVs591ZLOYaNt8CRmjIj7g&oe=69E81D8B

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

What is "centrical force"?

That's rich coming from you, I don't think I have ever seen you post a correct sentence.

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

Most of the original theories of a round earth came from Arabic (Islamic) and Chinese cultures – as they had better maths and scientific observation

The Chinese thought the Earth was square and changed their view under the influence of the Jesuits in the 17th century.

3 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You take things a bit seriously sometimes.

He's one of the rare people who manage to antagonise those who agree with him.

On 4/16/2026 at 2:33 PM, richard_smith237 said:

This again - is another example of Brandolini’s Law - you ask what on the surface appear like perfectly logical questions - but highlight great ignorance, which you could educate yourself beyond in a very quick time frame - you don't because you'd rather taken on the debate than dig into facts and reasoning - its why refuting your comments takes time and effort - its almost like a form of trolling.

I would call it joshing rather than trolling. I get a lot of flack from self-labelled educated science experts, I like to give them opportunities to put their money where their mouth is (more often than not, they underperform).

13 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

LOL.... the history of heliocentrism is just an amusing anecdote. I can see you're entertained by it.

Decide heliocentrism needs to happen > heliocentrism happens. That's a pretty straightforward example of politics.

On 4/16/2026 at 2:19 PM, Yellowtail said:

The angle does not matter, it's clear enough to see the tall buildings, but not the short ones. That's hilarious.

Of course it matters. So I found the same photograph taken from the same place (across lake Michigan, distance: 50 miles), which a guy posted on reddit five years ago (source available on request). This one is in much better quality than the one I posted before. I added the names and heights of the three tallest buildings.

On 4/16/2026 at 3:22 PM, Yellowtail said:

Quantas has a nonstop from Johannesburg to Sydney using a B787 in 12 hours.

The range of the B787 is less than 9,000 miles.

The distance on the flat-map is 18,000 miles, twice the range of the aircraft,

The aircraft currently used for this route (Qantas QF63) is an Airbus A380-800 (the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner was discontinued in 2024).

You are using azimuthal equidistant projection to disprove the flat Earth model, and that is invalid because it is a navigation tool, not a physical scale model. You are mistakenly using it as a 1:1 blueprint, ignoring that it purposefully distorts distances to project a spherical concept onto a flat surface.

Attempting to invalidate a flat Earth perspective by applying the mathematical constraints of a sphere, such as "great circle" distances or globe-based nautical miles, is a logical non-starter because it relies entirely on the circular reasoning of the model you are trying to prove. If the Earth is a level plane, then the physics and navigational formulas calibrated for a sphere are mathematically irrelevant.

To the person who laughed at this post: prove me wrong.

30 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

To the person who laughed at this post: prove me wrong.

The Chinese, of course, thought the Earth was an irregular hexagon: a square with 2 more corners, one corner for rattlesnake and one for his bestie.

21 minutes ago, Hish said:

The Chinese, of course, thought the Earth was an irregular hexagon: a square with 2 more corners, one corner for rattlesnake and one for his bestie.

This is correct. Please use my real name going forward: 响尾蛇是对的.

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

Read the OP – of course talking non-science is the basis for conspiracy theorists, and if you don't even have an elementary knowledge of physics, how can you be expected to have any kind of credibility? Someone trying to tell me the earth is flat and explaining with a force that cannot exisit or the moon landings were a hoax is displaying an education below that of an 11-year-old.

I sense we are still not on the same page. I note I had not been talking about the topic as a whole nor suggested that science should not be discussed in relation to say claims about a flat earth.

I thought it was a tad over the top to suggest my short post of 'one may assume centrifugal was meant' should be used as a basis to assume I have given deep consideration to the forces at play and what the correct science should be to explain a flat earth - rather than having simply picked a word, similar to the word used, that seemed to be what the poster had in mind.

The particular post was made by someone who is clearly a believer in a spheroid earth in what I interpreted as a jokey post about flat earth theories. Clearly I have not advocated flat earth theories.

If someone was saying centrifugal forces can necessarily explain say a flat earth then by all means go for it and get all uppity and say things like how dare they post etc etc .

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Decide heliocentrism needs to happen > heliocentrism happens. That's a pretty straightforward example of politics.

And so.... inquiring minds since proved it's true.... and dolts are stuck on who thought what centuries ago.

3 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

And so.... inquiring minds since proved it's true....

Well, if proof is needed then proof is found. Politics, my dear…

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

The aircraft currently used for this route (Qantas QF63) is an Airbus A380-800 (the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner was discontinued in 2024).

You are using azimuthal equidistant projection to disprove the flat Earth model, and that is invalid because it is a navigation tool, not a physical scale model. You are mistakenly using it as a 1:1 blueprint, ignoring that it purposefully distorts distances to project a spherical concept onto a flat surface.

Attempting to invalidate a flat Earth perspective by applying the mathematical constraints of a sphere, such as "great circle" distances or globe-based nautical miles, is a logical non-starter because it relies entirely on the circular reasoning of the model you are trying to prove. If the Earth is a level plane, then the physics and navigational formulas calibrated for a sphere are mathematically irrelevant.

You should stand up when you read anything to do with science or math.... otherwise the premise is way way over your head.

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Well, if proof is needed then proof is found. Politics, my dear…

definitely true in the CT universe, where STEM take a back seat.

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

The aircraft currently used for this route (Qantas QF63) is an Airbus A380-800 (the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner was discontinued in 2024).

Has the distance between Johannesburg to Sydney changed significantly since 2024?

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

You are using azimuthal equidistant projection to disprove the flat Earth model, and that is invalid because it is a navigation tool, not a physical scale model. You are mistakenly using it as a 1:1 blueprint, ignoring that it purposefully distorts distances to project a spherical concept onto a flat surface.

Attempting to invalidate a flat Earth perspective by applying the mathematical constraints of a sphere, such as "great circle" distances or globe-based nautical miles, is a logical non-starter because it relies entirely on the circular reasoning of the model you are trying to prove. If the Earth is a level plane, then the physics and navigational formulas calibrated for a sphere are mathematically irrelevant.

So what is the distance on the flat-map from Johannesburg to Sydney?

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So what is the distance on the flat-map from Johannesburg to Sydney?

The distance between Johannesburg and Sydney is an absolute number, approximately 11,000 km.

It is definitely impossible to represent it on the Gleason's map, which shows the limitations of azimuthal equidistant projections, which stretch the Southern hemishere. Definitely a valid point to bear in mind, and something to improve.

However, singling out this one point as the 'mic drop moment which destroys the flat Earth' (ignoring the plethora of inconsistencies and impossibilities of the heliocentric model) would be preposterous.

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The distance between Johannesburg and Sydney is an absolute number, approximately 11,000 km.

It is definitely impossible to represent it on the Gleason's map, which shows the limitations of azimuthal equidistant projections, which stretch the Southern hemishere. Definitely a valid point to bear in mind, and something to improve.

However, singling out this one point as the 'mic drop moment which destroys the flat Earth' (ignoring the plethora of inconsistencies and impossibilities of the heliocentric model) would be preposterous.

So, the distance is the same on both the flat-earth and "spherical" Earth, that's convenient.

And there is no scale map of the flat earth, is that correct?

What are the limitations of an azimuthal equidistant projection?

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And there is no scale map of the flat earth, is that correct?

I am not aware of one, it would be good if there were one though. Even the Gleason's map, which I use myself a lot, was, according to Gleason himself, extrapolated from a globe.

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What are the limitations of an azimuthal equidistant projection?

Geometric distortion.

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I am not aware of one, it would be good if there were one though. Even the Gleason's map, which I use myself a lot, was, according to Gleason himself, extrapolated from a globe.

Why would there not be one? It would be easy enough.

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Geometric distortion.

Except that azimuthal equidistant projection works great for most everything except showing the world flat.

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why would there not be one? It would be easy enough.

Would it be that easy? Every single mapping and projection tool was designed and implemented under a spherical, bipolar paradigm.

And liberty-taking on maps for visibility and convenience purposes is not an unprecedented thing, the Mercator map being the most blatant bexample, with Greenland appearing as large as Africa, Europe the same size as South America, etc.

It isn't uncommon at all to have gaps between reality and its representations.

20 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Except that azimuthal equidistant projection works great for most everything except showing the world flat.

It was designed specifically to represent a globe, based on a globe model, so this isn't unexpected.