Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scotty CTA

The Final Globe Earth v Flat Earth Debate

Recommended Posts

On 9/15/2017 at 1:24 AM, biffer said:

Relative to what? 

Relative to a flat motionless earth.

There's no such thing as a giant mass of curved water on (say) the Pacific Ocean over a 'globe'.

There is no 'force' that holds that amount of water against a spinning planet while at the same time allows steam to rise and wee insects to float about.

Gravity couldn't be that selective.

On 9/15/2017 at 1:26 AM, biffer said:

Prove that statement 

Disprove it.

On 9/15/2017 at 1:28 AM, biffer said:

And yet all you post as evidence is videos. Which, by your own statement, mean nothing. 

Not true.

One of the videos shows how the flat earth model would work.

That's not 'nothing'.

It's the concept explained in a visual.

Showing a 'ball' earth by CGI and fake astro'nots' with tons of hairspray and harnesses against green/blue screens isn't science. (My goodness.)

On 9/15/2017 at 1:28 AM, biffer said:

Have you done any actual research, and by that I mean controlled experiments to determine facts, not reading random stuff online and posting it without critical examination. 

If you had any actual proof we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

On 9/15/2017 at 1:36 AM, biffer said:

This thread is pretty typical brainwashing conspiracy nonsense BTW. Typical tactic of both religion and conspiracy theorists: when a thread gets out of your control, start another one so you can feel in control of the content again. Absolutely standard behaviour for what at the heart of it, is cultists. 

Nope.

To avoid complaints about a thread being hijacked I felt that there should be one thread for 9/11 and another for flat/globe earth.

I'm for clarity, while others are more than happy to muddy the waters.

On 9/15/2017 at 1:36 AM, biffer said:

I answered direct questions of yours with science and evidence. 

Tell me why the flat earth model doesn't work.

On 9/15/2017 at 1:36 AM, biffer said:

You didn't like the answer as it didn't agree with your preconceptions.

My only preconception was a previous belief in a 'ball' earth.

On 9/15/2017 at 1:36 AM, biffer said:

So you ignored it. And started a new thread so you could control the content (cue 'I thought the conversation was getting confused so a new thread would simplify it - in other words I had lost control of the content) 

Not one true word there, Donald.

On 9/15/2017 at 1:36 AM, biffer said:

Obviously the standard answer to this is now one of two options. Either something along the lines of I missed it / don't have time to answer everything or something to do with The great Enemy, a fiction that was created by your teachers as the answer to any difficult question. 

I'm only human.

It's very possible that I missed something, and lack of time is a universal problem (so could be 'guilty' there as well).

Please repeat the point that you think I'm avoiding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 1:44 AM, Toepoke said:

The universe may well have been created in 6 days but one thing's for sure, Earth was made as a globe orbiting as part of a solar system.

You haven't even seen that with your own eyes.

How can you say that it's "for sure".

What's "for sure" is that folk believe it (but that doesn't make it true).

On 9/15/2017 at 2:26 AM, sbcmfc said:

See if the earth was flat, I still don't really get who and why would go to such lengths to convince us it was round?

I've answered this a few times... The 'special creation' of a flat, motionless geocentric earth eliminates 'big bang' and 'evolution', and guarantees 'God'.

On 9/15/2017 at 2:29 AM, Flat Earth said:

 

Everyone is out of step but 'Our Jock'.

On 9/15/2017 at 4:54 AM, thplinth said:

Surely it is much more likely the Satanists have come up with this Flat Earth stuff as a way to discredit you and your 9/11 threads. Have you not noticed that some folk are genuinely thinking you must have been on the wind up all this time so far out there is this now. I don't know what troubles me more, that you have been at it all this time or that you actually now believe the earth is flat. I cannot think of a more credibility destroying move than to convince 'a truther' the world is flat. Are people going to remember all your 9/11 stuff or you being the guy who believed the earth is flat. You don't see how one detracts from the other in any way, how crazy this all sounds?

I have long said 9/11 was not what it seems but you just don't consider evidence that goes against your interpretation of what happened. I posted those 80+ witness statements seeing the plane that hit the pentagon fly in but still with the missile... Someone posts a picture from the space station and it is CGI... it is wild stuff.

How the chips fall in my pursuit of 'why I am who I am' (aka... the truth) isn't my concern.

On 9/15/2017 at 6:25 AM, min said:

I regularly track the space station:

https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/view.cfm?country=United_Kingdom&region=Scotland&city=Aberdeen#.Wbun2U2WwdU

How do you explain me looking up, through a telescope, at a clearly formed space station hurtling through the night sky. Despite the sky occasionally being cloud free, the space station will go dark at the precise moment the reflection of the sun is obscured by the earth. That moment of darkness will change as it moves around the globe.

I have a really good, highly educated (non-Christian) friend who says that he is going to come over and prove to me that the earth is a spinning 'ball'.

(He tracks 'satellites' too.)

On 9/15/2017 at 8:06 AM, Fairbairn said:

Is the moon a globe or is it flat too?

I don't know.

It could be 'CD' shaped.

On 9/15/2017 at 10:08 AM, Orraloon said:

I don't think Scotty CIA is being sarcastic. He's just trying to get some attention.

:rolleyes:

One goal (as always) is to get folk to question why they believe what they do.

Is it because everyone else seems to believe it?

Is it because of peer pressure?

Is it because it's formally taught?

Is it because they feel that they understand it (and do they realise that understanding a theory doesn't necessarily mean that that's the way it is?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

Oh, you're back,guess you've been away ironing your white robes for Saturdays rapture, not been reading any physics textbooks for sure  by the the look of this.

27 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Relative to a flat motionless earth.

There's no such thing as a giant mass of curved water on (say) the Pacific Ocean over a 'globe'.

There is no 'force' that holds that amount of water against a spinning planet while at the same time allows steam to rise and wee insects to float about.

Gravity couldn't be that selective.

Disprove it.

Not true.

One of the videos shows how the flat earth model would work.

That's not 'nothing'.

It's the concept explained in a visual.

Showing a 'ball' earth by CGI and fake astro'nots' with tons of hairspray and harnesses against green/blue screens isn't science. (My goodness.)

If you had any actual proof we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

Nope.

To avoid complaints about a thread being hijacked I felt that there should be one thread for 9/11 and another for flat/globe earth.

I'm for clarity, while others are more than happy to muddy the waters.

Tell me why the flat earth model doesn't work.

My only preconception was a previous belief in a 'ball' earth.

Not one true word there, Donald.

I'm only human.

It's very possible that I missed something, and lack of time is a universal problem (so could be 'guilty' there

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 4:22 PM, goodguy said:

Then why are you posting videos to try and convince people of your point of view?

 

On 9/16/2017 at 2:21 AM, Mindimoo said:

Good point, well made :ok:

It would only be a good point if I were posting videos claiming that they were actual footage of a flat, motionless earth (taken from goodness knows where).

The videos I post contain information and graphics of models that show how the flat motionless earth could work.

On 9/16/2017 at 4:42 AM, Toepoke said:

Interesting model, bears no resemblance to reality but fair play to them for putting in the effort...

My hope was for you to see that there is an alternative explanation to what we've been conditioned to believe (and I believe that that has now happened).

On 9/16/2017 at 5:18 AM, Nobby said:

Scotty if this board goes tits up I think I'll miss you the most. I've had a few debates with you and appreciate you trying to save me but we'll agree to disagree on most of your views. Would genuinely love to have met you for a beer. For all that you've posted I dont believe for a second anythIng was malicious and was with the best of intentions. As an interloper from down south this place has made me laugh many times wth my favourite being the mulberry handbag thread but you've contributed immensely and to be honest I don't care if you've been"at it" all this time or not. I doubt it but who knows . Anyway if ithe tamb does sink, good luck and god speed ?

Thank you for taking the time to write that, Nobby.

I believe that you mentioned that you had a couple of boys.

Sincere best wishes to you and your family. :ok:

On 9/16/2017 at 6:17 AM, iainmac1 said:

Who exactly are the enemy specifically? 

Satan, his demons, and the 'world elite' who worship them.

On 9/17/2017 at 5:24 PM, Dave in London said:

Way back when, I used to work on a cruise ship (this is an actual debate right?) and having crew access, I could walk right to the pointy bit at the front (stern? bow? starboard? who knows? Imagine the film Titanic when they lean, but without Winslet, but including DiCaprio's chiselled looks) and I promise you, when the full ocean is in front of you, you can see the curve. Albeit minor.

You only thought you did.

The non-existent curve can't be seen from as high up as we can really go (so you didn't see it from a ship, Mate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

You haven't even seen that with your own eyes.

How can you say that it's "for sure".

What's "for sure" is that folk believe it (but that doesn't make it true).

I see it with my own eyes every day. I've watched the sun rise and set countless times, tracked its movement up and down the sky as the seasons change, observed the changing night sky between winter and summer, and experienced long hours of daylight in the southern hemisphere in December.

I've yet to see the Flat Earth model that would enable this all to happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

One goal (as always) is to get folk to question why they believe what they do.

Is it because everyone else seems to believe it?

Is it because of peer pressure?

Is it because it's formally taught?

Is it because they feel that they understand it (and do they realise that understanding a theory doesn't necessarily mean that that's the way it is?)

It's because a spherical earth in a heliocentric system within an expanding universe is a model that allows prediction. These predictions have invariably proved correct, so far. Be it the dates and times of solar eclipses, to enabling men to reach the moon and unmanned craft to travel much further, or satellites to orbit the earth allowing us to communicate in the way we are. Or people to be able to cross the Antarctic, or predict weather patterns and their hemispheric differences.

It also explains the movement of the planets. In the geocentric model, the movement of the five known planets, the sun and the moon was a source of many problems (the course of the planets through the night sky shows them apparently reversing their paths). In order to explain this it became necessary to construct an elaborate system of 39 cycles and epicycles. The heliocentric model and Keplar's three laws of planetary motion solved the dilemma with a simplicity that is makes the old, cobbled-together system laughable.

Constructing falsifiable models and testing the resulting predictions through experiment and observation - that is the method that has built the bulwark of theory on which people rely and why they believe what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

My hope was for you to see that there is an alternative explanation to what we've been conditioned to believe (and I believe that that has now happened).

Yet you have been conditioned to believe that words written then translated in an ancient book by anonymous men 60-80 years after supposed events happened are sufficient to justify the claims you make.

Dont you find it ironic that you question everything except that ?

 

20 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Satan, his demons, and the 'world elite' who worship them.

 

Believing in Devils and Demons is for children and people that dont want to grow up.

Humanity on it's own is capable of great good and unspeakable evil without the requirements of Gods or Devils.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 5:36 PM, bonzo said:

Doesn't really matter if the world is ending next Saturday :P

The world never ends.

Only the 'age' ends (and only the Father knows the time of Jesus' return).

Once again it'll be rubbish that'll be credited to 'Christians'.

On 9/17/2017 at 6:05 PM, calmac_man said:

I think you'll find...

[pushes glasses up nose]

... that it's an oblate spheroid!

professional-liars_nasa.png?w=932&h=441

On 9/17/2017 at 6:05 PM, calmac_man said:

I don't remember Scotty being a literal flat earthist before. When did this happen? 

It's a relatively new line of thinking for me.

On 9/17/2017 at 6:05 PM, calmac_man said:

You'd have thought in the age of GPS that this one would have been slaughtered once and for all, but no, the internet seems to have made this stuff proliferate. 

GPS was strategically named (just like The Federal Reserve... Neither 'Federal' or a 'Reserve').

There is no 'globe' and there are no 'satellites'.

All of the 'GPS' info is land-based... from towers, etc.

On 9/17/2017 at 6:11 PM, calmac_man said:

Scotty's right, there are no truly accurate maps.

:) Yay!

On 9/17/2017 at 6:11 PM, calmac_man said:

It would be a piece of piss to map the world if it were flat.

 

Their 'hidden in plain sight' MO isn't about to change any time soon...

flat_earth_UN_flag.png

On 9/17/2017 at 6:11 PM, calmac_man said:

The reason it's difficult...

Apart from it not being true?

On 9/17/2017 at 6:11 PM, calmac_man said:

...and ground measurements start going wrong over long distances (see the borders between US states), is because the planet is curved.

You can't justify that conclusion from what you've said here.

Yes, curved to flat won't work accurately but... so?

On 9/17/2017 at 6:11 PM, calmac_man said:

Can't believe I'm getting drawn into this. 

Just like old times! :lol:

Does the speck know (really know) what the speck is standing on?

On 9/18/2017 at 10:12 AM, Grim Jim said:

2012 is easy. Taken from a lower altitude, so field of view is filled by N America.  

Seriously?

Then why are all the 'NASA earths' the same size?

On 9/18/2017 at 10:12 AM, Grim Jim said:

 Funny how you can see further by flying higher in an airplane.

It's not funny at all.

Everyone understands that (but that's not what the image shows).

It shows a continent getting bigger while the 'ball' earth remains the same size.

On 9/18/2017 at 10:12 AM, Grim Jim said:

FFS, the Suez canal should drain from its ends since the middle is higher!??!  

You only believe it to be higher in the middle because you believe in a spinning 'ball' earth.

 

On 9/18/2017 at 2:16 PM, thplinth said:

water does not curve apparently...

780px-Water_droplet_lying_on_a_damask.jp

Now only if the Pacific Ocean consisted of one drop of water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2017 at 2:34 PM, thplinth said:

They are all composites. There are hardly any single pictures of the earth in existence. (Apollo 17? I think was one). Everything else is stitched together using pictures taken at different times and with complex cloud pattern changes in between. They take the pictures in different ways and then make a composite. That is why they are all different (it is part picture but still like an artist's interpretation pulling it all together). 1975 especially would be ridiculously different technology.

That's a good way of putting it.

On 9/18/2017 at 3:40 PM, Grim Jim said:

Obvious, now you mention it thplinth.   Very few flights have been far enough away to get a wide view.   Most orbits will still be from just a few miles up.

And they would have needed to fake simulate the curvature to make composites :blink:

Thank you.

On 9/20/2017 at 6:06 PM, calmac_man said:

Have none of these bams ever tried this simple project. It's now pretty cheap and simple to get a weather balloon, camera, phone and box, and send them into space. Loads of people have done it and put their videos on Youtube - in the example here they reached 33km, and the curve of the Earth is very obvious.

Simple, cheap and incontrovertible; why wouldn't one of them give it a go? 

Near Space Weather Balloon Launch With Gopro

Nope... fish-eye lens.

Go to the folk with the videos that don't slink to such tricks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 5:11 PM, biffer said:

Also, if someone could explain why, in a flat earth scenario, weather systems spin one way in the northern hemisphere and the other way in the Southern Hemisphere, that'd be great. 

It's an illusion.

23 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Pretty sure Scotty posted a video before using weather balloon footage to "prove" earth is flat as the curvature of the planet wasn't visible.

Just tried to show that you can't see a curve no matter how high you go.

14 hours ago, biffer said:

And as Scott himself says, seeing a video of something in this day and age proves nothing.

Try it yourself without a fish-eye lens, then.

14 hours ago, Toepoke said:

I've read comments from Concorde pilots saying that from 25km up it felt like you could see the ground curve but it was really an optical illusion.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Oh, you're back,guess you've been away ironing your white robes for Saturdays rapture...

I've been busy renovating the addition to my house...

wch1yx.jpg

1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

I see it with my own eyes every day. I've watched the sun rise and set countless times...

That's only the illusion you have from your perspective (believing in the sizes and distances you've been indoctrinated with).

1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

I've yet to see the Flat Earth model that would enable this all to happen.

The one I showed you does those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Then why are all the 'NASA earths' the same size?

It's not funny at all.

Everyone understands that (but that's not what the image shows).

It shows a continent getting bigger while the 'ball' earth remains the same size.

You only believe it to be higher in the middle because you believe in a spinning 'ball' earth.

I see the NASA earth pics as what would fill your field of view from different altitudes.   From a low orbit, you would only see a part of a continent, but be able to see more from half way to the moon (The real one, not your just-out-of-reach CD or whatever.)   Experiment: Take a photo of a globe from far away and from very close up (wide angle lens to fit it in), then resize the pictures to make the globes in the pictures the same diameter.

You misunderstood me... I don't believe the canal is higher in the middle; Your original video makes the claim that water would be uphill in the middle it is if the earth is a ball, along with railway lines.   It's the same erroneous point about having to point about having to point the airplane nose down to keep it level.   Airplanes fly straight- and-level over the globe due to gravity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

The one I showed you does those things.

Seriously? This?

On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 1:25 PM, Scotty CTA said:

 

A model is a mathematical model that simulates the way things actually behave in the physical world and that enables prediction. Your 'model' is a computer animation where the light from the 'sun' emanates in one direction and cuts off in the other, exactly like light doesn't do in reality. Your model fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

The one I showed you does those things.

It does none of them.  For example I've yet to hear an explanation of how the sun and moon can appear half hidden over the horizon / edge of the earth...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Toepoke said:

I see it with my own eyes every day. I've watched the sun rise and set countless times, tracked its movement up and down the sky as the seasons change, observed the changing night sky between winter and summer, and experienced long hours of daylight in the southern hemisphere in December.

I've yet to see the Flat Earth model that would enable this all to happen.

 

I am assuming you have forgotten that Scotty CIA has seen god and Jesus with his own eyes. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. "If you can't see with your own eyes, it it's not there".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of a spherical earth predates Christianity with the Antikythera mechanism. It was made before the birth of Jesus and was able to predict the celestial movements, solar eclipses and even the ancient Olympics.

The Pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx  predate monotheism entirely and also have encoded in them scales relating to the spherical nature of the Earth.

The fact that the "The precession of the of the equinoxes"  is also accounted for showed that not only did they know it was a "sphere" they knew it was wobbling as well. In fact any star-gazing culture always seems to come to the same conclusion for the past 12,000 years, Gobleki Tepe has astronomical charts from 12,500 years ago. Set up with special interest in the Taurids meteor stream, which in a non-moving model wouldn't be a problem.

So 12,500 years of human looking up to the sky and counting versus not looking into the sky but at youtube.

Hmmm I wonder what is the most likely course of action to get something done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so I'm skim reading this, mainly because it's bat shit crazy that it's even being discussed in this detail but in the same way it's like a car crash that you can't look away from.  However I have another question that has most likely been asked already but I'd appreciate someone humouring me with clarification.  If the Earth is indeed flat, why has noone ever sailed to/off the edge?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fairbairn said:

OK so I'm skim reading this, mainly because it's bat shit crazy that it's even being discussed in this detail but in the same way it's like a car crash that you can't look away from.  However I have another question that has most likely been asked already but I'd appreciate someone humouring me with clarification.  If the Earth is indeed flat, why has noone ever sailed to/off the edge?  

Ice wall I think was the answer, but could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BlueGaz said:

Ice wall I think was the answer, but could be wrong.

 

2 minutes ago, Donaldo87 said:

Aye the ice wall keeps all the water in...

:rollsmile::rollsmile::rollsmile:

Brilliant!!  And has anyone ever found this ice wall?  Or is it protected by magic and can only be brought down by dragons?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fairbairn said:

 

:rollsmile::rollsmile::rollsmile:

Brilliant!!  And has anyone ever found this ice wall?  Or is it protected by magic and can only be brought down by dragons?!

There was an image of a ship next to it, or it might have been a video.  So its def there.  It didn't seem that tall in the picture, so not sure why an Ark was required.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the glaciers in the Ross sea that was shown, I want to go there, you can sail round them though into the Weddell sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fairbairn said:

 

:rollsmile::rollsmile::rollsmile:

Brilliant!!  And has anyone ever found this ice wall?  Or is it protected by magic and can only be brought down by dragons?!

Guarded by NATO soldiers, c'mon keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the word debate in the title. 

Very curious as there’s no debate.

We all live on a very big sphere spinning in space.

Anyone who says otherwise is clearly mental.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Relative to a flat motionless earth.

There's no such thing as a giant mass of curved water on (say) the Pacific Ocean over a 'globe'.

There is no 'force' that holds that amount of water against a spinning planet while at the same time allows steam to rise and wee insects to float about.

Gravity couldn't be that selective.

Disprove it.

Not true.

One of the videos shows how the flat earth model would work.

That's not 'nothing'.

It's the concept explained in a visual.

Showing a 'ball' earth by CGI and fake astro'nots' with tons of hairspray and harnesses against green/blue screens isn't science. (My goodness.)

If you had any actual proof we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

Nope.

To avoid complaints about a thread being hijacked I felt that there should be one thread for 9/11 and another for flat/globe earth.

I'm for clarity, while others are more than happy to muddy the waters.

Tell me why the flat earth model doesn't work.

My only preconception was a previous belief in a 'ball' earth.

Not one true word there, Donald.

I'm only human.

It's very possible that I missed something, and lack of time is a universal problem (so could be 'guilty' there as well).

Please repeat the point that you think I'm avoiding.

The proof is in the maths. You won't answer any questions which are asked about things such as the southern cross always being in the south or the different circulation of weather systems in the northern and southern hemispheres, or that you can see the sunset over the ocean but can't see Ireland from Canada. (You've not mentioned the last one of these since I put the maths in and proved you could see it in a flat earth scenario). When you've been asked you've given something vague as a suggestion, but no proof, no maths, no demonstration of how it works in all situations. Your video links don't do it either because they are poorly thought through hypotheses (not theories). Unlike you, I've actually done proper science experimentation. I know these things to be true because I have tested the hypotheses. Have you done a single experiment to back any of your hypotheses up? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×