Flat Earth?

[paul's got wright]

this moon proofs killin ye isnt it bob!

they must be soaken by now again! x

 

[TheTeapot]

That flat earth video youve posted Paul, which Ive watched bits of is so full of shit its crazy. No science whatsoever, just observations. Take for example the bit where he is complaining about the size of the earth on a photo taken from the moon, where he says it isn't big enough. Well, next time there is a full moon (24th, hunters moon) it should appear absolutely huge. Go up Douglas head, watch it come up by Onchan head and take a photo. The moon in your photo will in no way represent what you saw with your own eyes. I could probably go through the whole video and completely dismiss everything, but frankly I can't be bothered. 

[paul's got wright]

oh look joe rogan on the moon landings!

 

[paul's got wright]

9 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

That flat earth video youve posted Paul, which Ive watched bits of is so full of shit its crazy. No science whatsoever, just observations. Take for example the bit where he is complaining about the size of the earth on a photo taken from the moon, where he says it isn't big enough. Well, next time there is a full moon (24th, hunters moon) it should appear absolutely huge. Go up Douglas head, watch it come up by Onchan head and take a photo. The moon in your photo will in no way represent what you saw with your own eyes. I could probably go through the whole video and completely dismiss everything, but frankly I can't be bothered. 

my point was the clearly acceptable platform he was offered by the school!

so its a valid topic obviously! 

please show us the debunkings its interesting x

[paul's got wright]

would have liked to hear the students replies

[paul's got wright]

funny how the trolls cant admit how poular the subject has become!

heres a fella who said he gave up being a teacher because of the globe teachings involved

funny old game isnt it x

 

[quilp]

Come on everybody, you must have it by now that Paul's winding you all up for his own entertainment, for a laugh! Years, and 4000+ posts later, the usual suspects have fallen for the little scamp's pranking-- hook, line and sinker.

He probably doesn't believe a word of any of it himself! I can envisage him secretly giggling his tits off at the lengths some posters have gone to in their efforts to refute FE. Inwardly smiling at the earnest salvos fired at him by the intellectual big guns of the forum and stoically impervious to personal insult.

You've gotta hand it to him. He's cocked-a-snook at us all.

An interesting, yet perhaps unwitting social experiment too, maybe.

Well done Paul, we fell for it, the joke's on us...

[manxy]

33 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

That flat earth video youve posted Paul, which Ive watched bits of is so full of shit its crazy. No science whatsoever, just observations. Take for example the bit where he is complaining about the size of the earth on a photo taken from the moon, where he says it isn't big enough. Well, next time there is a full moon (24th, hunters moon) it should appear absolutely huge. Go up Douglas head, watch it come up by Onchan head and take a photo. The moon in your photo will in no way represent what you saw with your own eyes. I could probably go through the whole video and completely dismiss everything, but frankly I can't be bothered. 

Personally, Looking through someone else's 'must see' videos is hard to do and regardless of what Paul hoped you'd see, I think it was a positive thing that you tried to see his angle. Respect for trying 

[paul's got wright]

24 minutes ago, quilp said:

Come on everybody, you must have it by now that Paul's winding you all up for his own entertainment, for a laugh! Years, and 4000+ posts later, the usual suspects have fallen for the little scamp's pranking-- hook, line and sinker.

He probably doesn't believe a word of any of it himself! I can envisage him secretly giggling his tits off at the lengths some posters have gone to in their efforts to refute FE. Inwardly smiling at the earnest salvos fired at him by the intellectual big guns of the forum and stoically impervious to personal insult.

You've gotta hand it to him. He's cocked-a-snook at us all.

An interesting, yet perhaps unwitting social experiment too, maybe.

Well done Paul, we fell for it, the joke's on us...

What say you of this teacher fellow quilpy?

Is he trolling you?

[manxy]

My short but concise information regards level water being observed in lengthy straight canals with no bendy water was accepted by some as reasonable although it was pointed out that gravity was that which kept the water from falling off the theoretical sphere of earth.

I will divulge more, hopefully tomorrow regards gravity and although I am realistic enough to be aware that some people may put up barriers and dismiss any thoughts or suggestions that goes against the grain, especially to what people have generally been taught in schools at an early learning age, I do hope that people will have the presence of mind to say (if they disagree), that it doesn't work for them because of XYZ and without feeling the need to shout or write derogatory comments

This is along the lines of discussion and where I would be expected to provide additional comment. If people are able to see two sides of the coin, then they usually have a logical mind although they still retain the side that is more likeable to them and that should be accepted from either side. I may pick heads, but someone else might prefer tails. Fair play I'd say and I'd love to say heads I win, tails you lose, but that isn't fair in my book.

I reserve the right to check any relevant facts and also to theorise both sides of the coin and ask that members try and contain themselves from asking too many questions at the same time so that they do not seem incomprehensible and over the top. Do not expect an immediate answer as I have a life outside of the forum, but lets see where it goes and if we can have a little leg pulling without getting shirty, then I'll give it a go.

Kind regards,

Mrs Manxy

[La Colombe]

6 hours ago, manxy said:

My short but concise information regards level water being observed in lengthy straight canals with no bendy water was accepted by some as reasonable although it was pointed out that gravity was that which kept the water from falling off the theoretical sphere of earth.

I will divulge more, hopefully tomorrow regards gravity and although I am realistic enough to be aware that some people may put up barriers and dismiss any thoughts or suggestions that goes against the grain, especially to what people have generally been taught in schools at an early learning age, I do hope that people will have the presence of mind to say (if they disagree), that it doesn't work for them because of XYZ and without feeling the need to shout or write derogatory comments

This is along the lines of discussion and where I would be expected to provide additional comment. If people are able to see two sides of the coin, then they usually have a logical mind although they still retain the side that is more likeable to them and that should be accepted from either side. I may pick heads, but someone else might prefer tails. Fair play I'd say and I'd love to say heads I win, tails you lose, but that isn't fair in my book.

I reserve the right to check any relevant facts and also to theorise both sides of the coin and ask that members try and contain themselves from asking too many questions at the same time so that they do not seem incomprehensible and over the top. Do not expect an immediate answer as I have a life outside of the forum, but lets see where it goes and if we can have a little leg pulling without getting shirty, then I'll give it a go.

Kind regards,

Mrs Manxy

Eh? This post has to have been generated by a bot. 

[Neil Down]

8 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

ye wettin ye knickers again over this one bob!

ye dyin to know now arnt ye!

how funny that its me tellin you how they never went back to the moon due to you being a biased poor reseacher!

Are you still trying to tell us that your former teachers thought you an excellent student? Your English teacher wasn't one of them I'll wager...

[manxman1980]

@manxy Would you care to comment on the photograph of the basketball I posted earlier?  Would you agree that the surface of the basketball looks flat, however, the "horizon" looks very similar to what we see in the natural world?  (Imagine the lumps as being the hills/mountains of the Earth if it helps).

If you agree that the surface of the basketball can look flat if viewed from a certain perspective then do you must surely also concede that the Earth viewed from our perspective on the surface would also look flat?

Have you tried the experiment I suggested using a model globe and a camera?  It is a simple set up and you can see for yourself how the distance from the surface would change the apparent size and shape of the continents.  Again if you do this experiment would you concede that the distance of the satellites from the Earth will effect how the continents look on a photograph?

You also asked about the movement of storm systems on the Earth as seen from space.  Again, please remember that you are talking about vast distances.  You can stand outside and look at a low cloud and you will notice its movement across the sky.  If you look at a distant cloud or one at a higher altitude that movement becomes less noticeable.  Now imagine doing that at thousands of kilometres away. 

Similarly people often comment that satellites are not visible on the photographs of Earth taken in orbit but please bear in mind that satellites are around the size of a car.  From what distance would you be able to clearly identify a car?  If you have been in an aircraft think about what altitude you reach before you are unable to identify a single car.

I also asked you to consider how a ship would navigate Antarctica on a globe vs on a flat earth with ice walls.  If ice walls exist then ships would have to make course corrections to keep away from the ice (apart from navigating around any outcrops or inlets).  On a globe ships would make course corrections towards the ice (again with the same exceptions apply to outcrops and inlets).  The distances involved would also be significantly different.  There is a race around Antarctica organised by non-governmental bodies so you could check with them, however, if you do not trust them then there is no international treaty that would stop you travelling their on a ship and actually doing it for yourself (I know its expensive and we all have other things going on in our lives).

Finally, water, like everything else on the Earth is effected by a multitude of factors including gravity which shapes how it behaves.  Of course we cannot attach water to the surface of, for arguments sake, a basket ball and make it behave as it does on the Earth.  Why?  Because the mass of the Earth is greater than the mass of the basketball and therefore it applies much more force to the water than the basketball.  Have you seen how water behaves in a low-gravity environment?

All I ask is that you try the two experiments I have suggested and consider how that fits with the world you see around you.  Give some though to the other comments I have made and think about which "model" fits better.  I am not saying that any of this proves that the Earth is an oblate sphere, however, it should at least make you aware that perspective is important and that what we see can often be "false".

 

[Neil Down]

11 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

@manxy Would you care to comment on the photograph of the basketball I posted earlier?  Would you agree that the surface of the basketball looks flat, however, the "horizon" looks very similar to what we see in the natural world?  (Imagine the lumps as being the hills/mountains of the Earth if it helps).

If you agree that the surface of the basketball can look flat if viewed from a certain perspective then do you must surely also concede that the Earth viewed from our perspective on the surface would also look flat?

Have you tried the experiment I suggested using a model globe and a camera?  It is a simple set up and you can see for yourself how the distance from the surface would change the apparent size and shape of the continents.  Again if you do this experiment would you concede that the distance of the satellites from the Earth will effect how the continents look on a photograph?

You also asked about the movement of storm systems on the Earth as seen from space.  Again, please remember that you are talking about vast distances.  You can stand outside and look at a low cloud and you will notice its movement across the sky.  If you look at a distant cloud or one at a higher altitude that movement becomes less noticeable.  Now imagine doing that at thousands of kilometres away. 

Similarly people often comment that satellites are not visible on the photographs of Earth taken in orbit but please bear in mind that satellites are around the size of a car.  From what distance would you be able to clearly identify a car?  If you have been in an aircraft think about what altitude you reach before you are unable to identify a single car.

I also asked you to consider how a ship would navigate Antarctica on a globe vs on a flat earth with ice walls.  If ice walls exist then ships would have to make course corrections to keep away from the ice (apart from navigating around any outcrops or inlets).  On a globe ships would make course corrections towards the ice (again with the same exceptions apply to outcrops and inlets).  The distances involved would also be significantly different.  There is a race around Antarctica organised by non-governmental bodies so you could check with them, however, if you do not trust them then there is no international treaty that would stop you travelling their on a ship and actually doing it for yourself (I know its expensive and we all have other things going on in our lives).

Finally, water, like everything else on the Earth is effected by a multitude of factors including gravity which shapes how it behaves.  Of course we cannot attach water to the surface of, for arguments sake, a basket ball and make it behave as it does on the Earth.  Why?  Because the mass of the Earth is greater than the mass of the basketball and therefore it applies much more force to the water than the basketball.  Have you seen how water behaves in a low-gravity environment?

All I ask is that you try the two experiments I have suggested and consider how that fits with the world you see around you.  Give some though to the other comments I have made and think about which "model" fits better.  I am not saying that any of this proves that the Earth is an oblate sphere, however, it should at least make you aware that perspective is important and that what we see can often be "false".

 

You'll regret posting that manxman...

[Uhtred]

10 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

That flat earth video youve posted Paul, which Ive watched bits of is so full of shit its crazy. No science whatsoever, just observations. Take for example the bit where he is complaining about the size of the earth on a photo taken from the moon, where he says it isn't big enough. Well, next time there is a full moon (24th, hunters moon) it should appear absolutely huge. Go up Douglas head, watch it come up by Onchan head and take a photo. The moon in your photo will in no way represent what you saw with your own eyes. I could probably go through the whole video and completely dismiss everything, but frankly I can't be bothered. 

It is symptomatic and typical of the arsehole that you were directing your comments to that he responds to your perfectly lucid and sound observations with the laughing face. No cogent response, just a laughing face. The laughing face of an imbecile.