Flat Earth?

[gerrydandridge]

 

 

Seismology.

Fascinating how they get this...When nobody has been able to drill greater than 8 miles..no matter where in the world they try, 8 miles seems to be the limit?

 

 

 

How deep is the flat earth?

 

Spherical earth or flat earth, the actual real world logistics and problems of drilling a depth of 8 miles or more are immense.

 

I don't know but there seems to be a barrier of some kind at 8 miles.

[woolley]

I'll concede one thing to you Gerry. You have an amazing capacity to stick at an argument with the scantest of material to back it up. You have a talent. Maybe you should consider politics.

[Chinahand]

 

 

​Equal Days and nights occur at different times depending where your are..

 

Erm ... I've asked you a number of times and this is the only reply which even touches upon it, but it shows you really don't understand what the Equinoxes are.

 

Equal days and nights don't occur at different times depending where you are.

 

At least understand how day and night differs around the world before appointing yourself an expert upon it.

 

Gerry, do you understand what the Equinox is?

 

What you've written indicates you really don't.

 

Can you write a paragraph, in your own words, explaining it and relating the equinox to a flat earth model. If the animations aren't right - well have the gumption to do it yourself, tell us how it is in words.

 

A "spherical cow" simplification is fine - but if your model can't tell you what the sun angle will be at noon in various parts of the world at various times in the year it is useless.

 

_______________

 

 

 

Gerry, you've made comments about how the tilt of the Earth to 23.4 degrees is a blind assumption of some Spherical earth theory. It really isn't.

 

As has been continually pointed out to you - you can go and measure this yourself. It will take you a year of patient work watching the sun's path through the sky and recording, say how high it is at noon every day.

 

In mid summer it will be 23.4 degrees higher than the average, in mid winter 23.4 degrees lower.

 

As I pointed out to you with star positions and especially Polaris the Flat Earth model does not reproduce the reality of the night sky.

 

The same is true of the path of the sun and sunset and sunrise times.

 

Your model does not work, it does not fit with observations you could do yourself and which thousands of patient conscientious people have done to understand how the sun moves through the sky.

 

What is so annoying about you is that you are ignorant of all the evidence these people have collected but just dismiss it. Insisting you know better, even when your words show you profoundly misunderstand.

 

Go and learn about the Equinox and how it occurs around the world, then look to see if the models you think represent reality provide any fit when measured against reality.

 

The spherical earth model has great predictive power - a flat earth effectively none.

[Chinahand]

Just to add something which is fun, but now rather out of date.

 

This link takes you to a really old JAVA site - you can't view it on Chrome, and will probably have to add it to your exceptions list to get it to work*.

 

The site looks at various astronomical models astronomers have come up with over time - and compares them with accurate modern observations.

 

There's Ptolemy's earth centric model, Tacho Brahe's mixed system with the planets going round the sun, but the sun going round the earth, and finally Copernicus's model of the solar-centric solar system.

 

That model is, of course, still wrong as it has circular orbits - it was only with Kepler and Newton that elliptical orbits were understood and added to improve the precision of the models yet again.

 

What I like about the site is that it shows science - you have a model, and you see what it predicts. The Ptolemic model wasn't that bad with it's epicycles helping in some way to predict the retrograde movements of the planets, but Copernicus's insights really improved the predictive power of astronomy.

 

You have some simple equations, you create a best fit for these equations via the data you have and this then allows you to predict where a planet might be on a certain night and then you go and look. Ptolemy's model could be out by quite a lot, but over time things have been improved and improved.

 

Nowadays the equations include elliptical orbits and the procession of the equinoxes (any idea what that is Gerry?) etc and are pretty convoluted. Gerry, I own this book and have worked through it's spread sheets - fancy a go at it?

 

Or try this wonderful book from 1861: The projection and calculation of the sphere for young sea officers being a complete initiation into nautical astronomy.

 

Why do the calculations on a sphere - because that is the only way to get them to work. Do it on a flat Earth and no matter how good you are at using a sextant your results will get you lost.

 

Gerry clearly doesn't understand that. His models don't work - they make Ptolemy's model look like the height of sophistication, but science has moved on.

 

Observations have been taken and we've found better and better ways to model them to practically be able to understand the world and hence navigate, predict sunrise and sunset times, and the height of the sun at mid day on any particular place on any day of the year.

 

Gerry's models can't do that - but he thinks they are more valid.

 

His faith counter to evidence - even simple things like the views of mountains from a beach - is really sad, but that is his mindset.

 

*I've used it for years and touchwood it hasn't compromised my system.

[paul's got wright]

@Gerry

 

What has the moon got to do with the Equinox?

 

You've not answered a single one of my questions.

 

Does the single day in the gif you posted, or in PGR's video when it purports to be the equinox actually produce Eqinox throughout the world?

 

Yes or no?

just for clarity it's not my video. just one i watched x

[paul's got wright]

oh the irony of the tag team with One Dire Errection x

 

[wrighty]

@Gerry

 

Let's assume for a moment that your flat earth theory is correct. It would take more than NASA and a clique of world governments to hide the truth from us all by faking a spherical earth, without even going into the reasons why they may wish to do this. As various folk have demonstrated, mainly Chinahand, with simple experiments you can perform yourself you can show that a spherical model fits with the observations, whereas a flat model does not. The spherical model was well established before NASA or anyone else started taking photos from space.

 

No, this would require some omniscient omnipotent presence to fake all the physics for everyone thinking about this, to make it seem as though the world was spherical, with an inverse square law of gravitation - the same physics that works when throwing a ball, or flying a plane. God basically.

 

But it's more than that. It's an omniscient omnipotent presence who for some reason does not want us to know the earth is really flat. Why would that be? If he's made it flat why would he want us to think it spherical by faking all these experiments we can all do?

 

I suppose we could go one step further and say that the scientific method in general isn't correct, or even that mathematics isn't correct. This is clearly nonsense - mathematics is by definition correct, and is successful in making predictions about natural phenomena when appropriately applied. Even god can't change mathematical truths.

 

So is this what it's all about for you Gerry? Or are you the most successful troll this forum has seen? If so well done - 104 pages and counting is a top effort.

 

ETA - I don't expect a reply, as that's your usual modus operandi when challenged directly.

[Bobbie Bobster]

@wrighty If gerry thinks he's still trolling then it's an, ahem, epic fail on his part.

 

Nobody is taking him seriously, least of all China who would seem to be using the topic as a good oppportunity for increasing his own, and our knowledge of, inter alia, optics, trigonometery and orbital mechanics.

[Chinahand]

Hee hee ... you've described me to a tee there Bobbie.

 

It was quite fun when back on the Island thinking where there are good places to see the effects of the horizon.

 

Port Erin Beach was excellent - hence the photos.

 

I've also some from Peel Beach, but they are less good quality - you have to enhance them to see the hills of Scotland which will immediately result in claims of fakery as Gerry did with the mirage effects on the Scottish Island video I posted up ages ago.

 

But in Peel I saw a really brilliant way to demonstrate the curvature of the earth - but to really ace it you would need a telephoto lens which I didn't have that day.

 

I did manage to borrow one a few days later back at Port Erin, but I've not got the images back yet - hee hee another post on that will probably come in a week or so!

 

But if people want to see a really good demonstration of the curvature of the Earth then on a clear day go and walk up and down Peel Hill armed with a pair of binoculars and/or a telephoto lens and look out at the Mull of Galloway Lighthouse.

 

It is about 47km away. Wiki says the light is 99m above the sea and is 26m high which would make the base at 73m. This contradicts Google Earth which says the base is about 50m above sea level. Who knows which is right! But what makes it perfect is that it stands atop of huge sea cliffs.

 

If the top is 99m above sea level, and you are 10m up Peel Hill then it would be visible 50.61km away in a standard atmosphere - but what is fun to look at is how the cliffs appear and disappear from view as you go up and down the hill.

 

From 10m up - ie basically at the car park (though you might not be able to see due to the castle being in the way! I saw the view from inside the castle) - you could see anything higher than 81.2m above see level in standard atmospheric conditions. So if wiki is correct you won't see the bottom of the lighthouse.

 

When I looked from inside the castle you could just see the base (so not standard atmospheric conditions - not that surprising with a cold sea and warm air), so it looked like the lighthouse was basically at sea level.

 

As you climb up Peel Hill the cliffs just emerge from the horizon. Once you get to the Corrin's Tower 140 m above sea level you'll be basically able to see the entire cliff.

 

It's a wonderful and really clear demonstration of the curvature of the Earth - the cliffs are basically hidden under the horizon at the bottom of the hill, with the Lighthouse looking like its standing next to the sea, while at the top the lighthouse is clearly atop a huge cliff.

 

I saw all this just last week, but didn't have a telephoto camera to take pictures to prove it.

 

You won't need a huge lens to be able to see it.

 

Anyone up for it?

 

Peel Hill's a nice place for a walk on a nice day and it would be a wonderful evidence based way of showing just how wrong Gerry's ideas are.

 

Gerry, have you got a pair of binoculars - for £40 you could rest easy that a huge consipracy isn't trying to hide a flat earth from you. Are you willing to go and have a look?

 

Goodness knows what convoluted (il)logic Gerry will come up with to explain away these simple observations.

 

If anyone does do it, please do post up the photos!!

[gerrydandridge]

@Gerry

 

Let's assume for a moment that your flat earth theory is correct. It would take more than NASA and a clique of world governments to hide the truth from us all by faking a spherical earth, without even going into the reasons why they may wish to do this. As various folk have demonstrated, mainly Chinahand, with simple experiments you can perform yourself you can show that a spherical model fits with the observations, whereas a flat model does not. The spherical model was well established before NASA or anyone else started taking photos from space.

 

No, this would require some omniscient omnipotent presence to fake all the physics for everyone thinking about this, to make it seem as though the world was spherical, with an inverse square law of gravitation - the same physics that works when throwing a ball, or flying a plane. God basically.

 

But it's more than that. It's an omniscient omnipotent presence who for some reason does not want us to know the earth is really flat. Why would that be? If he's made it flat why would he want us to think it spherical by faking all these experiments we can all do?

 

I suppose we could go one step further and say that the scientific method in general isn't correct, or even that mathematics isn't correct. This is clearly nonsense - mathematics is by definition correct, and is successful in making predictions about natural phenomena when appropriately applied. Even god can't change mathematical truths.

 

So is this what it's all about for you Gerry? Or are you the most successful troll this forum has seen? If so well done - 104 pages and counting is a top effort.

 

ETA - I don't expect a reply, as that's your usual modus operandi when challenged directly.

 

No Omnipresent, omniscient deity is needed for this deception, we live in a world of duality (yin yang, night day, up down, good evil) and a spiritual battle is taking place here, I try to keep away from this side of it as I know I will just come across as unhinged, we have been trained very well to point and laugh at anyone that deviates from the scripted procedure, they will even eat their own scientists if they venture away from the suggested topics of research.

 

The first thing that enters the "Ball Earth Skeptic's" mind is that I am going to get the piss taken out of me for this..That's social conditioning for you..

 

Many times throughout this thread the mention of the inverse square law and gravity is used, but can someone show of an experiment that has taken place which shows this to be true, one where we don't have to make any assumptions?

 

Is there a working model of gravity here on Earth or do we have to assume the planets are a certain distance, travelling at a certain speed, with a certain mass for it to all work? Is this your scientific proof that the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, that pluto is 2-3 billion miles away because it fits in with the model of gravity and we made up the numbers involved?

 

How do they know the statistics of these heavenly bodies? Do we have to make any assumptions about them?

 

I thought Science was about observation and repeatable results, well if I make up the masses and the distances and whatever else I like about an object that no body has ever been up to and touched then I can make the various mathematical models work, we have had the best minds on this for centuries tweeking here and tweeking there...

 

There is nothing wrong with Mathematics but can we make a physical model work with a mathematical model by just making assumptions and as soon as someone points out a flaw in the model, we make another assumption up to make the model work again.

 

A problem is found so we need to bring in another Jesuit trained Freemason, like SIR Issac Newton to save the day with a new magical force...Gravity....G, It just had to be "G", ...Their occult symbolism is all around us, in everything even down to their attack dog's uniforms.

 

 

A great example is parallax,.....Question "why don't we see parallax in the stars when travelling around the sun nearly 200,000,000 miles in 6 months": Answer: "because they are trillions and trillions of miles away and 200,000,000 miles is nothing in comparison to the distance they are from us"

 

 

Question" Why I can see a 534 metre mountain ,84 KM away, the curvature of the earth says the base of it should be 553 metres below the horizon, why is this if the earth is a ball as science tells me" Answer: "because the light is bending around the globe in the correct direction making it possible for you to see, here is a complex mathematical equation with a constant of 3.86 that I made for you muppet simpleton "...

 

Is an enclosed flat Earth put here for us really any more ridiculous than saying it just appeared out of nothing, this nothingness just exploded and here you are..Is that any kind of explanation.

 

The deception started centuries before NASA came on the scene, NASA were just another stage of it, founded by the very people that mastered mind control, MK ultra.

 

How can anyone in their right mind take the NASA pictures and explanations, especially the latest crap about Pluto and that ridiculous moon passing over the CGI earth where the weather never seems to change... as anything other than a big piss take. And the greatest accomplishment in human history to then claim they lost all the data, hundreds of boxes of tapes, plans of the crafts used, even the telemetry data, do you think it might be easier to hide a fraud if the evidence of the said crime is missing?

 

They are trying their very best to remove a creator from the scene, you have freewill, Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.

 

Check out how the private space venturing is getting on, some 46 years after NASA put a man on the moon.

 

2 official NASA photos of the Earth in 46 years.

 

This Math and science is what dictates these space adventures that NASA are telling us all about, if we can prove the space adventures are rubbish then the science behind them is also likely nonsense...

 

Without the Freemasonry G none of this works.

[Chinahand]

Gerry, go and walk up Peel Hill, you've spent too much time getting paranoid on the internet.

 

The walk will do you good, and the view will change your perception of the earth. For once in your life, trust the evidence in front of your eyes rather than that fed to you by the deluded on the internet.

[paul's got wright]

it's getting very insightful again here good work gentlemen. try n keep it clean please china. it does make it much nicer to read. it took over a 100 pages but the debate's now live and the platform is here without the ridicule we are left with questions and answers. all very good for the researchers out there. thanks again x

[manxy]

Does anyone know the quick answer as to what was revealed/answered in the green laser experiment we've said somewhere through this thread?

 

Last link

[gerrydandridge]

Gerry, go and walk up Peel Hill, you've spent too much time getting paranoid on the internet.

 

The walk will do you good, and the view will change your perception of the earth. For once in your life, trust the evidence in front of your eyes rather than that fed to you by the deluded on the internet.

One of the first observations I made with my eyes long before the FE revelations was that the Sun and the Moon look the same size in the sky to my eyes, however they are not, the sun is in fact 400 times larger than the moon and as it happens is 400 times farther away from us, so only its appearance is the same size, this is another fantastical coincidence that for many years bugged me.

[gerrydandridge]

Does anyone know the quick answer as to what was revealed/answered in the green laser experiment we've said somewhere through this thread?

The laser light expanded to about 10 feet across on the other side over a 4 mile distance, it wasn't suitable to be considered scientific.

 

I then asked the question on here as to how NASA manages to fire a laser to the moon and back onto a 2 foot mirror 250,000 miles away and passing through many miles of atmosphere in both directions...I just heard crickets!!!!