The Evolution and Dinosaur Hoaxes Laid Out - Page 5 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The Evolution and Dinosaur Hoaxes Laid Out


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, exile said:

I was talking to a real person today who could barely believe there were real people arguing about the shape of the earth.

Anyway I asked him how he would most simply demonstrate the curvature of the Earth and he said you could see it from a balloon going directly upwards.

So, aside from all those other calculations, we should look out for any video footage from balloons........?

Scotty posting plenty, that no enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a Secret League of Gentlemen who travel throughout the world hiring big diggers wherever they stay 

For decades they have been going out at night and burying bones that have been manufactured to appear 65 million years old 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Oh, I'm all too aware.

He's someone who would bet everything they have PLUS the lives of himself and his family on the earth being a spinning ball DESPITE never being back (or up) far enough himself to see the actual shape for himself

Would you bet your own life or lives of others, on your claim the Earth is flat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Emoji said:

Scotty posting plenty, that no enough?

Ha, I see what you did there.

But I had forgotten, there is no point debating using evidence that relies on expert/technical equipment/surveys/demonstrations, as the evidence can just be argued away as optical illusion, or faked videos, etc.

Better to use simple demonstrations that anyone can think through or do for themselves.  (as per previous threads)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, exile said:

Would you bet your own life or lives of others, on your claim the Earth is flat?

No.

I haven't seen the shape of the earth with my own eyes.

I haven't been far enough away from it to view it in the whole.

I simply question the spinning ball earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, exile said:

But I had forgotten, there is no point debating using evidence that relies on expert/technical equipment/surveys/demonstrations, as the evidence can just be argued away as optical illusion, or faked videos, etc.

Better to use simple demonstrations that anyone can think through or do for themselves.  (as per previous threads)

Yet, you post nonsense...

22 hours ago, exile said:

I was talking to a real person today who could barely believe there were real people arguing about the shape of the earth.

Anyway I asked him how he would most simply demonstrate the curvature of the Earth and he said you could see it from a balloon going directly upwards.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

The chap in the video seems rather perturbed by the fact the bridge was built 2 inches longer because of the curvature of the earth. However he is not at all bothered by the fact that if the earth was flat there would be no need for the extra 2 inches.

No, he doesn't believe that the bridge was built any longer than required.

It was the globeheads that said (a ridiculous) 2 inches were added over 24 miles to accommodate the earth's curve (which doesn't add up anyway you look at it).

16 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Anyway you want the maths, yes? it's very easy you don't even need Pythagoras most famous formula.

Show me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

No.

Go the other way.

He's asking why he can see something 24 miles away that should be below the curve.

I watched the video again, he never once says that he can see the other end of the bridge 24 miles away. From a vantage point at sea level you could never see that far along the bridge.

 

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

No, he doesn't believe that the bridge was built any longer than required.

It was the globeheads that said (a ridiculous) 2 inches were added over 24 miles to accommodate the earth's curve (which doesn't add up anyway you look at it).

Show me.

Apologies for stealing Eisegerwind's thunder but it's late and I'm off to bed shortly.

Take the following assumptions:-

Circumference of Earth: 24,000 miles

Radius of Earth: 4000 miles

Pi = 3

Bridge length: 24 miles

Bridge height: 26 feet (0.005 miles)

Circumference of Earth at the road level of the bridge is 2 x Pi x Radius, ie. 2 x 3 x 4000.005 = 24000.03 miles

Conveniently for this example the bridge length is 1000th of the circumference of Earth,

Therefore 24000.03 / 1000 = 24.00003 miles, this is the length of the road on top of the bridge.

So the road is 0.00003 miles longer than the distance covered at sea level.

0.00003 miles = 0.16 feet = 2 inches

QED

 

 

Edited by Toepoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Toepoke said:

I watched the video again, he never once says that he can see the other end of the bridge 24 miles away. From a vantage point at sea level you could never see that far along the bridge.

 

Apologies for stealing Eisegerwind's thunder but it's late and I'm off to bed shortly.

Take the following assumptions:-

Circumference of Earth: 24,000 miles

Radius of Earth: 4000 miles

Pi = 3

Bridge length: 24 miles

Bridge height: 26 feet (0.005 miles)

Circumference of Earth at the road level of the bridge is 2 x Pi x Radius, ie. 2 x 3 x 4000.005 = 24000.03 miles

Conveniently for this example the bridge length is 1000th of the circumference of Earth,

Therefore 24000.03 / 1000 = 24.00003 miles, this is the length of the road on top of the bridge.

So the road is 0.00003 miles longer than the distance covered at sea level.

0.00003 miles = 0.16 feet = 2 inches

QED

 

 

Yep, essentially that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Toepoke said:

I watched the video again, he never once says that he can see the other end of the bridge 24 miles away. From a vantage point at sea level you could never see that far along the bridge.

 

Apologies for stealing Eisegerwind's thunder but it's late and I'm off to bed shortly.

Take the following assumptions:-

Circumference of Earth: 24,000 miles

Radius of Earth: 4000 miles

Pi = 3

Bridge length: 24 miles

Bridge height: 26 feet (0.005 miles)

Circumference of Earth at the road level of the bridge is 2 x Pi x Radius, ie. 2 x 3 x 4000.005 = 24000.03 miles

Conveniently for this example the bridge length is 1000th of the circumference of Earth,

Therefore 24000.03 / 1000 = 24.00003 miles, this is the length of the road on top of the bridge.

So the road is 0.00003 miles longer than the distance covered at sea level.

0.00003 miles = 0.16 feet = 2 inches

QED

 

 

But, but,  but..............you never used the 24 squared bit.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2019 at 2:28 PM, Scotty CTA said:

The New Orleans skyline (from approx. 28 miles away) should be hidden by approx. 520 feet of 'curvature' yet it can be seen with the naked eye.

 

9 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

No.

I haven't seen the shape of the earth with my own eyes.

I haven't been far enough away from it to view it in the whole.

I simply question the spinning ball earth.

 

Do all flat-earth folk really need to go to space to prove their theory though? I know yiz crowdfunded some guy to build a home-made manned rocket.

Couldn't he have just bought a long range laser rangefinder off the US military (max range 25km), or some 2nd hand microwave relay communications dishes, and conducted some tests?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

No, he doesn't believe that the bridge was built any longer than required.

It was the globeheads that said (a ridiculous) 2 inches were added over 24 miles to accommodate the earth's curve (which doesn't add up anyway you look at it).

Show me.

Have you taken any long exposure/star trail photos yet of Polaris (see previous thread)? If so, are you willing to share them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

No.

I haven't seen the shape of the earth with my own eyes.

I haven't been far enough away from it to view it in the whole.

I simply question the spinning ball earth.

Have you not seen the shape of the Earth, in the form of its round shadow on the moon?

I don't think anyone has ever refuted that shape, at least, never on here. 

Anyway, I have a question over on the Lunar Eclipse thread...

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2019 at 7:54 PM, Toepoke said:

Apologies for stealing Eisegerwind's thunder...

:-))

On 9/12/2019 at 7:54 PM, Toepoke said:

Take the following assumptions:-

Circumference of Earth: 24,000 miles

Radius of Earth: 4000 miles

Pi = 3

Bridge length: 24 miles

Bridge height: 26 feet (0.005 miles)

Circumference of Earth at the road level of the bridge is 2 x Pi x Radius, ie. 2 x 3 x 4000.005 = 24000.03 miles

Conveniently for this example the bridge length is 1000th of the circumference of Earth,

Therefore 24000.03 / 1000 = 24.00003 miles, this is the length of the road on top of the bridge.

So the road is 0.00003 miles longer than the distance covered at sea level.

0.00003 miles = 0.16 feet = 2 inches

QED

So if the earth 'curves' 2 inches every 24 miles, and over 24,000 miles it would 'curve' 2,000 inches... how do you end up with a 'ball'?

Show me your math to determine the 'curvature' of the earth, please.

('Ball', not circle.)

On 9/13/2019 at 2:20 AM, Eisegerwind said:

Yep, essentially that's it.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

So if the earth 'curves' 2 inches every 24 miles, and over 24,000 miles it would 'curve' 2,000 inches... how do you end up with a 'ball'?

Show me your math to determine the 'curvature' of the earth, please.

('Ball', not circle.)

Scotty I hate do get personal here but did you pass your maths O Grade?

We're not talking about curvature here, it's distances travelled.

What you said above is almost correct, if you travel around the world 26 feet above the surface you would indeed cover 2000 inches further than if you did it at sea level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Scotty I hate do get personal here but did you pass your maths O Grade?

We're not talking about curvature here, it's distances travelled.

What you said above is almost correct, if you travel around the world 26 feet above the surface you would indeed cover 2000 inches further than if you did it at sea level.

Shows how big the world is (or how big a ball it is) that increasing its radius by 26 feet is pretty negligible.   i.e. only adds 2000 inches (55 yards) to its circumference.

It's so big that to an observer on its surface, it might look almost flat B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Aye it is obvious now... you and Scotty should be sharing the same padded cell on Devil's Island. You are just different sides of the same insane coin. Just look at the way you joined a message board to chase him off it. Not acting like a nutter at all there... or now.

There is zero chance of ever proving or disproving anything like the existence of God. None.

The people that tell you they know God exists or does not exist really are as mad as each other.

Or as stupid. Or as ignorant. Or as bitter. Take your loony ball pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...