T1B

This should prove once and for all that the earth is spherical.

Your "proof" is laughable. Anyone can draw a picture.

I thought it was a photograph.

:?

It’s in my nature.

88 wrote:

Kierland wrote:Why can’t you perceive the change? It’s over 3,300 feet long. Does it have an over 4” arch or not? It’s engineered and built to specifications not drawn in crayon and slapped together by magic.

Last time I saw anyone build anything, they used a level. A level is a fluid-filled tube with a bubble of air. Centering the bubble of air determines level. The level is level over the entire pool, even though there is a 4” change over 3,000’. Do the math.

What would a 3,000 ft level look like? Would it have a 4"+ arc?

88 wrote: Last time I saw anyone build anything, they used a level. A level is a fluid-filled tube with a bubble of air. Centering the bubble of air determines level. The level is level over the entire pool, even though there is a 4” change over 3,000’. Do the math.

You could use one of these devices. Centered in the project you would be dealing with a 2 inch change over the 1500 feet each way.





But Tiny needs to go ahead and build that 3,000 foot level. I am sure someone has done it before. Plans on Amazon probably.

88 wrote: I don’t even know what flay is.

You never watch the food network?

88 wrote:I don’t even know what flay is.

flay - verb: peel the skin off (a corpse or carcass)

I also like flay mignon.

.088 wrote:Did you see the “Drawing not to scale. Vertical elevations are exaggerated” part?

Of course.

Pull that section up on Google Earth.
It is still completely irrational.

Softball Bat wrote:Space begins at 62 miles.

Smackie wrote:Says who?

Softball Bat wrote:The Fédération aéronautique internationale (FAI), which is an international standard-setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics, defines the Kármán line as the altitude of 100 kilometres (62 miles; 330,000 feet) above Earth's sea level.

Smackie wrote:And you believe them? They believe the planet is (roughly) spherical. Why are they credible when it comes to this?

I was merely informing .088 about the model that he tells us is a fact.

It's funny to me how ignorant globe lovers are about the model they insist is true.

Papa Willie wrote:So you deny gravity.

Did you ever consider the fact that god made the earth a globe?
So you deny gravity.

Did you ever consider the fact that god made the earth a globe?

I assumed the globe was true for over 50 years.
We all have assumed it to be true.


Gravity is a theory.

Where is the center of the earth?
How do you know?
How do you know that there is a center of the earth?

I show you science and you make bullshit up.

I assume the ball falls because the earth has been designed with an up and a down.
The ball is more dense than the air, so it falls to what we call down.

You can not pass gravity off as a fact because you can not show where the center of the earth is, let alone if there even is a center of the earth.
What we both agree on is that things definitely fall down.


Regarding the flight...

1. I have never shown this map and said it is a map of the earth. I do not know the shape of the earth for sure, and I do not know what the map of the earth looks like.

2. Take the flight. Document it fully. Time it. Watch all the way to notice what land masses you see.

3. I have no map of the earth that I can point to as accurate at this time. There is ample discussion to be found on the internet about southern hemisphere flights, and earth map and shape. Do your own research. It is the right thing to do.

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the Earth is flat. My questions to you, poptart, is why has no one taken a picture of the edge of the world? Why is that place not a tourist attraction? Why has no one gone through the effort to map the precise shape and contours of this planet of ours? What is on the flip side of Earth? What exactly is magnetic north if there is no such thing as north? What causes compasses to point to this specific location? If all the celestial bodies that we can see have a plate-like appearance, can we extrapolate that Earth has the same shape? Why does the moon wax and wane if Earth is flat? How do high altitude winds such as the jet stream get generated? Does the Earth have a solid underpinning like bedrock all the way to the edge? What keeps the oceans contained in their places when water on a flat surface such as a table spreads out?

There is a limitless number of questions which arise from the idea that the Earth is flat, the primary one being how has any body of science managed to be applicable to our world when the very foundation of these disciplines/schools of thought are-- according to you --erroneous?

Rooster, a flat, enclosed earth has been the prevailing view for the majority of human history.

It is only in more recent times (relatively) that people have gone afoul on this issue.
imo


I both like and dislike your post.

Like: Because you have asked many questions -- and there are many things to think about and explore.

Dislike: Because you have asked many questions -- and usually in such a case, the person asking the questions is not really seeking answers, but is instead trying to bombard someone else, making it seem as if there are a plethora of reasons why the globe must be true.

The edge.
I can tell from your very first question that you have no looked into this issue at all.
Imo, the reason the edge has not been seen (at least that we know about) is because it is not possible for us to get to the edge.
The Designer made it so that we can not get to the edge.
jmo

In my case, when I first encountered "flat earth" a few years ago, I laffed at the notion, scrolled it, ignored it, and thought it must be THE dumbest thing ever.
This is what most think, and this is why most never seriously give it consideration.


One day I did begin to look at "flat earth," though.
Much to my surprise, there was a LOT to it.
Really a lot.

A lot of what you assume is quite simply, rubbish.


So look into it yourself.
You should.

Poptart, my post was not meant to be read in an aggressive tone, but to press you on what seem to me to be very logical questions which arise from the stipulation that the Earth is flat. We have plenty of explanations of how things work and why using a spherical model, but basic science— as is commonly known and understood today —would be hard pressed to give answers to many of the questions I posed to you concerning a flat or amoeba shaped earth.

I dumped a bunch of questions on you in a single post, because the one question-one answer format takes so long to construct a conversation. It also give you an opportunity to build on one question and answer to lay the foundation for subsequent questions.

Again, if we stipulate that there is a Designer (and not all here would agree to such a stipulation), we can assume that He operates in a rational, logical, and orderly manner based on His nature. Chaos and disorder would be antithetical to a Creator except in that it is used for a specific purpose or result. Thus, we can extrapolate, for instance, that when water spreads across a level table in an even manner until it reaches the edge and pours off or an equilibrium is attained between surface tension and gravity’s pull, that this would apply equally to the oceans and how they behave— particularly if we are using a flat Earth as the premise for this discussion.

It leads to a logical second question which is why has not a map been made of the boundary of what has been discovered so far if we dismiss a globe as the structure of our planet? As many people have pointed out, the various forms of transportation are myriad and cover every mode of conveyance and medium which needs to be crossed. So there is a cognitive dissonance between the mapping ability which we have and the larger picture of our Earth and its boundaries which creates a serious challenge to your position. It follows that human nature being what it is, people are naturally drawn to finding explanations for mysteries, a prime example being cartography and its application to our place in this world. In other words, people will literally go to the ends of the earth to find those very answers to these questions.

You are correct in assuming I am a skeptic of the flat Earth idea. But rather than just mocking the idea, I find it is better to poke holes in it by asking salient and pertinent questions which require no great degree of imagination to list. If we cannot answer basic questions like “Where are we?” and “How far can I travel in this particular direction before I can go no further lest I reach my point of departure?” then everything we know should be thrown out the window. We might as well toss our hands up in the air and declare that we know absolutely nothing about anything.

88 wrote: Make one and see.

So you are sure the erf is round you just don’t know any of the specifics.

Softball Bat wrote:
Pull that section up on Google Earth.

You mean that software that's based on the earth being... a globe?

Don't blow this troll now -- you've come too far.

Softball Bat wrote: 1. I have never shown this map and said it is a map of the earth. I do not know the shape of the earth for sure, and I do not know what the map of the earth looks like.

2. Take the flight. Document it fully. Time it. Watch all the way to notice what land masses you see.

3. I have no map of the earth that I can point to as accurate at this time. There is ample discussion to be found on the internet about southern hemisphere flights, and earth map and shape. Do your own research. It is the right thing to do.

Translation into common English:

I am a troll, I just throw out random shit I pull out of my ass on a daily basis. I make claims with no scientific basis at all, then when questioned I will just denigrate your take as horse shit.

I will deny I made any claims that are clearly published in my previous posts and suggest that you all check the Bible for supporting information on my baseless claims.

I cannot put forth any scientific evidence to my claims and will deny I made them. You all suck, you all should research the information that is on the internet that clearly supports my flat earth premises. Fuck you all now.

Dinsdale wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:
Pull that section up on Google Earth.

You mean that software that's based on the earth being... a globe?

Don't blow this troll now -- you've come too far.

That might be the take that does it really. He is close. Can somebody push him off the edge of his flat earth please ?

So to recap: Duhrron has no idea what joists are and is also 3’ tall.
Fuck you, you government tit sucking idiot.

Queerland wrote:So to recap: Duhrron has no idea what joists are and is also 3’ tall.
Fuck you, you government tit sucking idiot.

Your pathetic flailing is painful to read. You have no take at all. You are nothing more than a miserable ankle biting troll who will be elected as Board Bitch AGAIN this year. Because you remember you slam dunked that title last year.

shutyomouth wrote:So you’ve no map to go on? Again, you’re using that as an out for your flawed theory. The economics of transportation alone throw your flawed theory into a bowl of gut pudding.

My theory is that the globe is wrong.
I need not produce a true map of the earth to show you that the globe is wrong.

The laser tests are evidence to show what we already know -- that water lays flat.
So show me the experiment which demonstrates water clinging to the outside of a flying and spinning ball.
Such a concept is ridiculous.

Why are you not interested in the laser tests?

Rooster wrote:Poptart, my post was not meant to be read in an aggressive tone, but to press you on what seem to me to be very logical questions which arise from the stipulation that the Earth is flat. We have plenty of explanations of how things work and why using a spherical model, but basic science— as is commonly known and understood today —would be hard pressed to give answers to many of the questions I posed to you concerning a flat or amoeba shaped earth.

No, they wouldn't.

I could have gone down the list and given an answer to them.
Answers are easy to find if you just look for them.
And for some of them, I do not have an answer for which I feel confident in, so in that case, I say so.

I answered your first question -- the edge.


So the 2nd question...

Why no flat earth map?

People who realize the globe does not add up are trying to identify the certain shape of the earth -- and show THE map.
There are a plethora of unknowns.
It isn't that easy.


I an not going to go down your whole list of questions.
Research them yourself.

Or not.
It's up to you.


But now, Rooster...
Did you look at the laser tests?

Where is your science that shows that water can cling to the outside of a flying, spinning ball?



Have you ever quietly thought about how preposterous it is?

Derron wrote:...you slam dunked that title last year.

You can't fake the funk on a nasty dunk, yo.

Rooster wrote:It leads to a logical second question which is why has not a map been made of the boundary of what has been discovered so far if we dismiss a globe as the structure of our planet?

You are not aware of a basic flat earth model.

There are a variety of models, but they tend to look something like this...





The center of the map is the North Pole.
The white part that circles the outside of the map is Antarctica.

Beyond Antarctica in any direction is "the edge," if there is an edge.
Maybe that isn't one?

My own theory is that Antarctica extends far beyond what is shown in this map --in all directions.
All ice, snow, and mountains.
So that no human can get to the edge.

And at the edge, imo, the firmament which covers the earth (as a dome) meets the land.


Nobody has seen the edge?
Maybe not.

Or maybe so.
Google Admiral Byrd and have fun.

Papa Willie wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:

shutyomouth wrote:So you’ve no map to go on? Again, you’re using that as an out for your flawed theory. The economics of transportation alone throw your flawed theory into a bowl of gut pudding.

My theory is that the globe is wrong.
I need not produce a true map of the earth to show you that the globe is wrong.

The laser tests are evidence to show what we already know -- that water lays flat.
So show me the experiment which demonstrates water clinging to the outside of a flying and spinning ball.
Such a concept is ridiculous.

Why are you not interested in the laser tests?

https://io9.gizmodo.com/a-historic-expe ... 1627339811

I think I will no longer be responding to you on this topic.

Derron wrote:I make claims with no scientific basis at all, then when questioned I will just denigrate your take as horse shit.

7 laser tests in 7 locations in 7 weather conditions.

I posted the comprehensive study and 121 page report.

You are not making any sense at all, Derron.


Where is your science experiment showing water clinging to the outside of a flying and spinning ball?

Post your science.

rotf...

Dinsdale wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:
Pull that section up on Google Earth.

You mean that software that's based on the earth being... a globe?

Don't blow this troll now -- you've come too far.

It is your model, clown.

Pull that section up on Google Earth.

Look at it.

Then try to use your brain and realize how completely stupid you have to be to believe water will behave like that.


Good grief.
You are seriously incapable of THINKing.

.088 wrote:I am convinced that if you arranged 3,000 1' long levels parallel to the surface of the water along the edge of the pool, all of them would show as level, yet the surface of the water would not lie within a perfect plane. The surface of the water in the pool would lie within a curve equal to the curve of the shape of the erf at that elevation above sea level.

And yet the laser tests show that such is not the case.

So...

Yeah.

shutyomouth wrote:Travel across America. Leave Atlanta and stay on a direct compass heading of 270 degrees and tell me where you end up. That is directly west. Where will you end up when you finally reach the Pacific?

On a flat earth, N is the only constant direction.

Moving W is not a straight line on a flat earth.

W circles the flat plane.

Softball Bat wrote:

shutyomouth wrote:Travel across America. Leave Atlanta and stay on a direct compass heading of 270 degrees and tell me where you end up. That is directly west. Where will you end up when you finally reach the Pacific?

On a flat earth, N is the only constant direction.

Moving W is not a straight line on a flat earth.

W circles the flat plane.

You claim to not know the shape of the earth, but you emphatically know what it isn’t, yet you do know compass and cardinal directions.

Troll on troll.

Over the past 3 years I have posted a shit ton of evidence showing how the globe is preposterous and quite simply wrong.

Any rational person who has taken the time to actually look at what has been posted, and consider it, would have realized long ago that something is seriously wrong with the globe that they have been told is correct.

it is cognitive dissonance.

Folks are in luv with that precious globe.
They cannot begin to fathom that it might be incorrect.

It is the damnedest thing.


I long ago moved away from assuming the globe to be true.
The evidence for it is lacking, to put it mildly.

My assumption is that we are flat, stationary, enclosed.
But I don't claim to know that for a fact.

It is just my working assumption at this time.

Proving I am wrong?
Post it.


Post the experiment showing water clinging to the outside of a flying, spinning ball.

Easy.


GO...

Softball Bat wrote:

Flight time from Satiago to Auckland: 12:35

Flight time from London to Auckland: 23:40


So, I guess that moronic model is out the window. Try another. Maybe one that can't be disproved in a few seconds next time.

Softball Bat wrote:Over the past 3 years I have posted a shit ton of evidence showing how the globe is preposterous and quite simply wrong.

Any rational person who has taken the time to actually look at what has been posted, and consider it, would have realized long ago that something is seriously wrong with the globe that they have been told is correct.

I will take the " Nobody at T1B gives a fuck for $ 400 " Alex.

My assumption is that we are flat, stationary, enclosed.
But I don't claim to know that for a fact.

It is just my working assumption at this time.

Well ...that is a conclusive statement. Feel free to shut your fucking pie hole about the flat earth shit and we can get back to the daily " Fuck Trump " debates. This is getting in the way of that discourse.

It makes perfect sense -- every other body we can see in space (including that one at night we can see with the naked eye)is spherical, and the earth is the lone exception. Perfectly logical.

Dinsdale wrote: (including that one at night we can see with the naked eye)

Only one?

That big bright spot that's been showing up pre-dawn the past couple of weeks is pretty spherical well.

Jupiter is about to become fairly visible pretty soon too, from what I hear.

If you're willing to get up early on December 31 you might get to see this:

Mikey wrote:Jupiter is about to become fairly visible pretty soon too, from what I hear.

Based on predictions using a non-spherical planetary model, I'm sure.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Mikey wrote:Jupiter is about to become fairly visible pretty soon too, from what I hear.

Based on predictions using a non-spherical planetary model, I'm sure.