Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scotty CTA

The Final Globe Earth v Flat Earth Debate

Recommended Posts

Not sure I understand this curvature of the earth pish becoming visible as you get higher. The horizon when you are standing 1m high is about 3.57km away in each direction. Observe at a height of 2m and the horizon is 5km away. Observe at 100m height and the horizon is 36km away. A U 2 pilot at 21000m the horizon is only 521km away... to observe the whole earth requires you are a lot further up. But no matter what height you look at the horizon you are looking down on a circular disk. You are standing there looking around you which is why it is circle. The higher you go the horizon circle enlarges until the horizon becomes very close the diameter of the earth. And then it starts to decrease in your eye as you move away. But at no time does any sphere curve appear. You can see it as a sphere by the oblique shadows but if the sun is directly overhead it would always look like a disc viewed from different heights just a bigger and bigger one until you could see nearly a whole hemisphere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 0:26 AM, Scotty CTA said:

 

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

It doesn't stick out THAT far :lol:. The diameter is 12,756.27 km at the equator and 12,713.56 km at the poles. In any picture that's going to look round.

Do you accept this? If not, why not? 

On 9/22/2017 at 0:26 AM, Scotty CTA said:

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

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

Obviously, obviously not. You can get GPS signal anywhere on Earth with the same strength, even when you're hundreds of miles from the nearest tower. I get perfect GPS on top of any Scottish mountain, but no other type of signal. And do you know how GPS works? Each satellite sends out a time signal, and by measuring the differences in the time signals your little phone can triangulate its position. It uses relativity, it's a marvel of out times. That couldn't work with towers unless you had at least three in line of sight.

And you know you can see satellites? I use a satellite detector app on my phone that tells me when and where to look, and what size of satellite it is, and lo and behold, I see them with my own eyes, crossing the sky in a line that could only happen on a globe. There have been nights when I've seen the same satellite come round again 90 minutes later. I recommend you download one of these apps, they're extraordinary.

So are all the mobile phone companies in on your conspiracy too? And app makers? And TomTom? And Garmin? 

On 9/22/2017 at 0:26 AM, Scotty CTA said:

rv

:) Yay!

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

flat_earth_UN_flag.png

Apart from it not being true?

So if that's the shape of the world, why do planes fly the wrong way? Why does the flight from Auckland to Santiago take about half the time it takes to fly from Sydney to London? Are all the plane companies burning excess fuel all over the world, at very considerable cost to themselves, for fun? If Sydney is closer to London than Auckland is to Santiago, what's the Sydney to London flight doing up there all that time?

If you doubt any of this, have a look at where planes are right now on Flightradar24.com and explain the flight paths they're all taking (hint: they are only taking the most direct routes if the Earth is spherical).

Or you could look into a cruise from Chile to South Africa, as I have - I'd love to visit Tristan Da Cunha some day. Given the times, that boat would have to be hauling some serious ass if the world was the shape you think it is.

Or you could learn about the fibre optic cables all around the world under the sea. Anyone working on those would obviously know how long the cables are. Are they in on the big pointless conspiracy?

Cruise liner companies all in on it too? Fishermen in the South Atlantic, South Pacific and Souther Ocean? All Antarctic scientist, especially those at the south pole base?

Isn't it, on the balance of probabilities, more likely that the word is, y'know, spherical?

On 9/22/2017 at 0:26 AM, Scotty CTA said:

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

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

Take the triangulation of India. They built trig points on prominent locations all over the entire sub-continent. Between these they measured the angle - not the distance, the angle. As you creep across the land you see that it curves down. Because the land is, well, curved.

At the top end of that curve the surveyors reached Peak XV, which they named for man in charge of the triangulation of India - George Everest. The man whose name is immortalised in the highest peak on the planet above sea level never saw the mountain named after him.

Can you explain this downwards curvature everywhere that cartographers have surveyed? 

Maps are hard to draw and always require a compromise because... well, take an orange. Draw some shapes on it. Now try and draw those shapes on a flat piece of paper. You can't make an exact representation. Something will have to give somewhere. You can discover how 2D maps are inaccurately simply by following a compass bearing long enough.

Or maybe you're smarter than literally every mathematician in the history of the world, and anyone who's ever explored anywhere. Can't rule it out.

On 9/22/2017 at 0:26 AM, Scotty CTA said:

Just like old times! :lol:

For old times sake. But I worry that your grasp on reality is sliding away from you. You have no reference points for what's plausible, what's unlikely, what's logical, what's rational. You use every possible angle to deconstruct a narrative you disagree with, yet accept without question what a bloke on the internet says. By a considerable margin, flat earthism is the maddest thing I've seen you support. In fact, until about a year ago I thought flat earthism was, at best, satirical. I didn't realise people actually believed something so manifestly disprovable. You're so easily led that, and I mean this genuinely, I don't think you're fit to serve on a jury.

And to finish: surface tension. It'll hold a water level by a millimetre or so. You can try this one in a cup in your kitchen. Now try scaling that up in your local swimming pool. You can still only do it by a millimetre or so, and if you ripple the water at all you'll break the tension, because water has low viscosity. This much is obvious to a child.

Sorry if this comes off as mean spirited, but I hope you realise what an insult it is to people who do real things in the world like go into space or fly planes or lay internet connections from one continent to another or do any of a hundred other things that make our lives better, to call them all liars. It's just unacceptable when your narrative is so clearly ludicrous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, thplinth said:

Not sure I understand this curvature of the earth pish becoming visible as you get higher. The horizon when you are standing 1m high is about 3.57km away in each direction. Observe at a height of 2m and the horizon is 5km away. Observe at 100m height and the horizon is 36km away. A U 2 pilot at 21000m the horizon is only 521km away... to observe the whole earth requires you are a lot further up. But no matter what height you look at the horizon you are looking down on a circular disk. You are standing there looking around you which is why it is circle. The higher you go the horizon circle enlarges until the horizon becomes very close the diameter of the earth. And then it starts to decrease in your eye as you move away. But at no time does any sphere curve appear. You can see it as a sphere by the oblique shadows but if the sun is directly overhead it would always look like a disc viewed from different heights just a bigger and bigger one until you could see nearly a whole hemisphere. 

If you go up by those altitudes, at the horizon, the point at which the land and sky meet, new things come into view. It's not a vanishing point thing, because they're coming into view where previously you could only see sky. You're getting higher so can see round the curve of the Earth. 

When you're at sea level the horizon is a straight line. When you get higher, it's not straight. It's curved. Now, you're right, if it were a disc it would look curved too - but only when you could see the edge of the disc. At the point at which it looks curved, if the planet were flat you'd be able to see every point on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 9:37 AM, 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?  

With these people, any time you get to "but why has no-one..." or "but why can people...", they just claim everyone's a liar. It's impossible to win because they'll just claim conspiracy when their bullshit runs out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22 September 2017 at 6:39 PM, thplinth said:

Not sure I understand this curvature of the earth pish becoming visible as you get higher. The horizon when you are standing 1m high is about 3.57km away in each direction. Observe at a height of 2m and the horizon is 5km away. Observe at 100m height and the horizon is 36km away. A U 2 pilot at 21000m the horizon is only 521km away... to observe the whole earth requires you are a lot further up. But no matter what height you look at the horizon you are looking down on a circular disk. You are standing there looking around you which is why it is circle. The higher you go the horizon circle enlarges until the horizon becomes very close the diameter of the earth. And then it starts to decrease in your eye as you move away. But at no time does any sphere curve appear. You can see it as a sphere by the oblique shadows but if the sun is directly overhead it would always look like a disc viewed from different heights just a bigger and bigger one until you could see nearly a whole hemisphere. 

So going by this the flat earth would have 2 sides, northern and Southern Hemisphere. The sphere curve most definitely appears and will no matter where it is viewed from, why......because it's a sphere. In a 2d sense you have a point as it would look like a disc but as you move around said disc the picture will always continue to change, until a full 360 is made and you are back to the same picture, turn 90degrees then repeat

 

3 hours ago, calmac_man said:

With these people, any time you get to "but why has no-one..." or "but why can people...", they just claim everyone's a liar. It's impossible to win because they'll just claim conspiracy when their bullshit runs out.

Cos Scotty is a troll,.... sad,sad, Nae mates troll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, calmac_man said:

It doesn't stick out THAT far :lol:. The diameter is 12,756.27 km at the equator and 12,713.56 km at the poles. In any picture that's going to look round.

Do you accept this? If not, why not? 

Obviously, obviously not. You can get GPS signal anywhere on Earth with the same strength, even when you're hundreds of miles from the nearest tower. I get perfect GPS on top of any Scottish mountain, but no other type of signal. And do you know how GPS works? Each satellite sends out a time signal, and by measuring the differences in the time signals your little phone can triangulate its position. It uses relativity, it's a marvel of out times. That couldn't work with towers unless you had at least three in line of sight.

And you know you can see satellites? I use a satellite detector app on my phone that tells me when and where to look, and what size of satellite it is, and lo and behold, I see them with my own eyes, crossing the sky in a line that could only happen on a globe. There have been nights when I've seen the same satellite come round again 90 minutes later. I recommend you download one of these apps, they're extraordinary.

So are all the mobile phone companies in on your conspiracy too? And app makers? And TomTom? And Garmin? 

So if that's the shape of the world, why do planes fly the wrong way? Why does the flight from Auckland to Santiago take about half the time it takes to fly from Sydney to London? Are all the plane companies burning excess fuel all over the world, at very considerable cost to themselves, for fun? If Sydney is closer to London than Auckland is to Santiago, what's the Sydney to London flight doing up there all that time?

If you doubt any of this, have a look at where planes are right now on Flightradar24.com and explain the flight paths they're all taking (hint: they are only taking the most direct routes if the Earth is spherical).

Or you could look into a cruise from Chile to South Africa, as I have - I'd love to visit Tristan Da Cunha some day. Given the times, that boat would have to be hauling some serious ass if the world was the shape you think it is.

Or you could learn about the fibre optic cables all around the world under the sea. Anyone working on those would obviously know how long the cables are. Are they in on the big pointless conspiracy?

Cruise liner companies all in on it too? Fishermen in the South Atlantic, South Pacific and Souther Ocean? All Antarctic scientist, especially those at the south pole base?

Isn't it, on the balance of probabilities, more likely that the word is, y'know, spherical?

Take the triangulation of India. They built trig points on prominent locations all over the entire sub-continent. Between these they measured the angle - not the distance, the angle. As you creep across the land you see that it curves down. Because the land is, well, curved.

At the top end of that curve the surveyors reached Peak XV, which they named for man in charge of the triangulation of India - George Everest. The man whose name is immortalised in the highest peak on the planet above sea level never saw the mountain named after him.

Can you explain this downwards curvature everywhere that cartographers have surveyed? 

Maps are hard to draw and always require a compromise because... well, take an orange. Draw some shapes on it. Now try and draw those shapes on a flat piece of paper. You can't make an exact representation. Something will have to give somewhere. You can discover how 2D maps are inaccurately simply by following a compass bearing long enough.

Or maybe you're smarter than literally every mathematician in the history of the world, and anyone who's ever explored anywhere. Can't rule it out.

For old times sake. But I worry that your grasp on reality is sliding away from you. You have no reference points for what's plausible, what's unlikely, what's logical, what's rational. You use every possible angle to deconstruct a narrative you disagree with, yet accept without question what a bloke on the internet says. By a considerable margin, flat earthism is the maddest thing I've seen you support. In fact, until about a year ago I thought flat earthism was, at best, satirical. I didn't realise people actually believed something so manifestly disprovable. You're so easily led that, and I mean this genuinely, I don't think you're fit to serve on a jury.

And to finish: surface tension. It'll hold a water level by a millimetre or so. You can try this one in a cup in your kitchen. Now try scaling that up in your local swimming pool. You can still only do it by a millimetre or so, and if you ripple the water at all you'll break the tension, because water has low viscosity. This much is obvious to a child.

Sorry if this comes off as mean spirited, but I hope you realise what an insult it is to people who do real things in the world like go into space or fly planes or lay internet connections from one continent to another or do any of a hundred other things that make our lives better, to call them all liars. It's just unacceptable when your narrative is so clearly ludicrous. 

Christ you like a long post.  It's all right making an argument against Scotty's madness and having a bit of a laugh about his bonkers god bothering but you hit the nail on the head. The stuff he posts is insulting ignorant trash and should be challenged.He is the most offensive poster on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Christ you like a long post.  It's all right making an argument against Scotty's madness and having a bit of a laugh about his bonkers god bothering but you hit the nail on the head. The stuff he posts is insulting ignorant trash and should be challenged.He is the most offensive poster on the board.

Seconded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Christ you like a long post.  It's all right making an argument against Scotty's madness and having a bit of a laugh about his bonkers god bothering but you hit the nail on the head. The stuff he posts is insulting ignorant trash and should be challenged.He is the most offensive poster on the board.

You've clearly never caught pistonbroke/wibble after a session. I'll agree I disagree with a lot of what he posts, but "the most offensive poster on the board" really ! I like people that are passionate about what they believe in from Margaret thatcher to tony benn and you can't argue that he isn't passionate. Granted the flat earth theory is stretching a point but then again I read terry Pratchett so who knows. One things for sure after reading his musings on here for a number of years is that he's a nice bloke. Argue with him yes but offensive no. Whatever his failings he genuinely does want the best for everyone. To be fair he's nearly Canadian and they are the nicest people I've ever met ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess everyone's idea of offensive is different. Today I read on the forum people calling others 'stinking huns' and 'tattie munchers'.That pales into insignificance  when Scotty is rubbishing the work of generations of honest hard working scientists,engineers,biologists  with nothing on there minds but progessing our knowledge of who we are and how our world works. Scotty is an idiotiic fool that given his views would take us back to an age of superstition and ignorance.He and his fellow God bothering whancks are cnuts.

Share this post


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

You've clearly never caught pistonbroke/wibble after a session. I'll agree I disagree with a lot of what he posts, but "the most offensive poster on the board" really ! I like people that are passionate about what they believe in from Margaret thatcher to tony benn and you can't argue that he isn't passionate. Granted the flat earth theory is stretching a point but then again I read terry Pratchett so who knows. One things for sure after reading his musings on here for a number of years is that he's a nice bloke. Argue with him yes but offensive no. Whatever his failings he genuinely does want the best for everyone. To be fair he's nearly Canadian and they are the nicest people I've ever met ?

You by any chance another God botherer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nobby said:

Whatever his failings he genuinely does want the best for everyone.

With the bunkum he tries to promote thats debatable ..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotty the most offensive poster on the board, that's an absolute belter of a comment.

its completely ridiculous :lol::lol:

i love how Scotty gets so many on here wetting the bed 

Share this post


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

I guess everyone's idea of offensive is different. Today I read on the forum people calling others 'stinking huns' and 'tattie munchers'.That pales into insignificance  when Scotty is rubbishing the work of generations of honest hard working scientists,engineers,biologists  with nothing on there minds but progessing our knowledge of who we are and how our world works. Scotty is an idiotiic fool that given his views would take us back to an age of superstition and ignorance.He and his fellow God bothering whancks are cnuts.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion but your last line is a tad harsh, in my opinion !

Share this post


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

I guess everyone's idea of offensive is different. Today I read on the forum people calling others 'stinking huns' and 'tattie munchers'.That pales into insignificance  when Scotty is rubbishing the work of generations of honest hard working scientists,engineers,biologists  with nothing on there minds but progessing our knowledge of who we are and how our world works. Scotty is an idiotiic fool that given his views would take us back to an age of superstition and ignorance.He and his fellow God bothering whancks are cnuts.

No one died at Sandy Hook. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have an upside to this though. At least Scott can't believe in Nibiru. So that's at least one load of pish we won't have to listen to. 

Edited by biffer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, biffer said:

Everyone still sure about inoffensive? 

Not to mention "genuinely" wanting the best for everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

 

My take on Scotty's last reply to my post was him coming out and admitting that it's all a wind up.

Edited by Eisegerwind
previous post there/their

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

My take on Scotty's last reply to my post was him coming out and admitting that it's all a wind up.

Either way, the offensive part is still true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, biffer said:

Either way, the offensive part is still true. 

Misguided rather than offensive, unless your a parent or relative involved. I'm a firm believer in the right to cause offence. People today are too feckin precious. Just my opinion of course !

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  

×