Jump to content
  • Sign Up

About This Club

A Place For The Flat Earth vs Round Earth Communities to debate the theory.

Club Type

Official
  1. What's new in this club
  2. thedudeabides

    What proof is enough?

    https://i.redd.it/w7ub5g35ho511.jpg Nuff said.
  3. https://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m309-01a/chu/Fundamentals/snell.htm As you can see in the diagram below, the angles used in Snell's law are the angles between the rays of light and the vertical direction (if the boundary layer is aligned horizontally): https://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m309-01a/chu/Fundamentals/snell01.gif But FECORE used the angles between the incident / refracted ray of light and the boundary, which is completely wrong! There is no excuse for such a mistake, it's a clear sign that the whole FECORE group has no clue about basic physics. The result of their calculations is complete garbage.
  4. We don't have a science problem here, its an integrity problem
  5. Because a FE sky object has to move towards the south in the sky (as seen from the observer's stationary location) when it approaches the zenith, since it would be travelling in a circle above the earth. It would then move back northerly from the zenith until it was no longer visible. Objects moving across the sky (as I observe them doing) and only having to slew on only a single axis (AKA a straight line) is proof positive for me that the globe model works.
  6. The equatorial mount on my refractor telescope is set up to Polaris as I'm sure yours is too; This allows easy tracking of celestial objects using one control since the heavens rotate around Polaris, year after year century after century . I see that as evidence of the stationary geocentric model . The heliocentric model would have me believe that earth circles the sun circling the galactic centre circling the local cluster at 560 miles per second ( 1,766,176,000 mls per year) yet the heavens don't change http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/86-considering-the-motion-of-the-earth-the-solar-system-and-the-galaxy-how-fast-am-i-moving-while-lying-in-bed-asleep-intermediate I can't reconcile that figure with the fact that star positions haven't changed for centuries . The universe is also expanding at an incredible rate , I've not included that , but things don't change . That's why the meteor showers return like clockwork every year. Why do you think it is impossible on a flat plane?
  7. An explanation and test showing how the equatorial mount for my telescope works perfectly for tracking the sun, moon, and stars in the sky, would be a pretty solid blow to the globe, imo. (Works perfectly on a globe and is impossible on a Flat Plane with things circling overhead.)
  8. Actually, the mainstream science and mainstream industry have provided proof for the globe.... you just don't except it because it comes from mainstream (By the way, mainstream lies are built upon truth). Even more damning to your cause is that countries against the USA and EU programming (Russia and China for example) also agree that the Earth is spherical. But it doesn't matter. FE is not science. It is a belief system. It is why you have street preachers like Odele pushing it so hard. It is why FECore has a Mennonite church for it's address. It is why FE has huge glaring holes, yet the proponents swear it is true.
  9. Anyone seen this? attempts to debunk your thread issue... http://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/808-fecore-2018-lake-balaton-the-biggest-laser-experiment-in-history-goes-bust
  10. I would like to see a way of calculating the correct distance between one point and any other point on earth -- within the Flat Earth model. The only way to do it is to compute the distance using spherical trigonometry. In other words: there is a working globe earth model, but there is no working FE model. ha ha ha
  11. In this thread I mentioned a simple proof -- measuring the horizon dip -- and I asked you 4 or 5 times to tell me whether Flat Earthers can disprove it -- your answer: sound of crickets. They don't use the FE model -- only within your twisted imagination ... and within the fantasy of Dean Odle. The obvious problem is that flatties don't understand what a reference frame is. But you can't criticize a concept if you don't understand it.
  12. I've never mapped the earth and neither have you . But people have . And since the authorities use the FE model as they freely admit then I cannot see any sense in anything you post . Fe model and the heliocentric/ gravitational model are not complimentary or interchangeable. You or any scientist cannot provide a working globe earth model . We know that since in all endeavours shown by their documents stating their use uf the model which actually works . The real earth model is the one with all the spherical trig stripped away . You , and mainstream science , cannot provide any proof for the globe . Some people see through their conditioning , some do'n't want to question - fair enough . Some are unable to see the truth when presented to them .Some are paid to defend the dogma . Didn't some American figure of authority say that " when the public treat every lie that we tell as the truth we will know our work is done " or words to that effect.
  13. I wrote that La Caille's results and Maupertuis' results complement Cassini's measurements. Don't you get it?? Problems with your reading comprehension? Ha ha. You can't even provide a working Flat Earth map. On the other hand the global transportation network is based on the globe. What about that?
  14. No, they don't use FE at all -- but you don't get it. You are a victim of your own wishful thinking, you can only see what you want to see.
  15. So far we've had " geocentrism doesn't always mean geocentrism " plus both " de lacailles pear shaped earth and Maupertuis oblate sphere complement Cassinis prolate sphere ". Haha Now we have - non rotational flat earth model ( which is what we use in for anything inside low earth orbit ) is interchangeable with heliocentric model and everything is relative. Farcical. Why use flat earth model at all lol. But they do over and over . The answer is staring you in the face . The good doctor on the forum link is unable to answer the many pertinent questions put forward to him by the creationist . Heliocentric model is indefensible Hope you watched the video and saw the many uses to which FE model is put .
  16. So you used a mouse to craft your message and not a keyboard?
  17. when I'm wildly clickin around with my crazy mouse....I just swear it has a mind of it's own sometimes.....
  18. quote from the video -- it is obvious that this Pastor Odle is just a very arrogant prick who has no clue at all -- there are many other examples as well. A bit earlier (at 53:10) he shows a spherical coordinate system used for the surface of the earth -- and he claims that it shows the "dome" -- what a crap!
  19. ... not sayin' you were... just making a comment on the whole shape of the world debate...
  20. I'm not trying to prove a spinning globe. Try another angle....
  21. The article explains in considerable detail why the Flat Earth viewpoint is bullshit. Thank you for posting the link.
  22. ...yeah...hard to do I guess... but not as hard as proving a spinning globe...
  23. The arrogance of a Flat Earther. There were a number of reasons why it took so long to perform that survey. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a6674/the-remarkable-story-of-the-first-accurate-measure-of-the-earth/
  24. FE is only interested in twisting the truth. Cherry-picking data and taking quotes out of context has nothing to do with real science. "You would think ..." -- No, I don't think in the same way as you. You can only speak for yourself. All reference frames -- geocentric, heliocentric, barycentric, galaxy-centric, etc. -- are equally valid. Why do you assume a heliocentric reference frame has to be used everywhere, while there is actually a freedom of choice? blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/
  25.  
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.