Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

roamer

 Member
  • Content count

    964
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

245 Excellent

1 Follower

About roamer

  • Rank
    Ancient Poster
  1. Look at the article ... in the upper right corner there is a link "Print this article" - it worked for me.
  2. As you can see in the video text on youtube he wrote "Oh... I screwed up and said METERS instead of MILES 5:47, but it still holds true for miles also" - grav published it in her response. Just try a google search for "earth moon earth communication" and you will find all the proofs you are looking for. Edit: a lot of info about earth-moon-earth (EME) communications is presented at this website: http://www.moonbouncers.org/ Is it impossible for you to begin a serious debate without these personal attacks?
  3. I agree with both points: I also enjoyed our debate, but it's a very specific topic. I respect your right to your beliefs in the same way.
  4. My info is taken from Paul Murdin: "Full Meridian of Glory", John Greenberg: "The Problem of the Earth's Shape from Newton to Clairaut" and Ian S. Glass: "Nicolas-Louis De La Caille, Astronomer and Geodesist". The re-measurement of the Paris meridian was undertaken 1739-1740 by Cassini III, Lacaille and Maraldi. source: "Nicolas-Louis De La Caille, Astronomer and Geodesist" by Ian S. Glass Jacques Cassini is called Cassini II in the book quoted above, Cassini de Thury (born 1714) was his son. So I'm talking about a re-measurement which took place about 20 years after Jacques Cassini's survey. You may call it a conspiracy - I don't care, because you have no evidence to support this claim. Please give me a source for this claim - I would be surprised if it's true.
  5. Sorry, it seems to me that your dogma is: "Newton was wrong and all later measurements which contradicted Cassini's original results are due to a conspiracy." Cassini's son has measured the Paris meridian again 20 years later, and his results contradicted Cassini's measurements. But you have claimed again and again that all newer measurements were falsified because of a conspiracy. You are very selective in your choice of "scientific evidence formed by experimental scientists" - everything which contradicts your flat earth dogma must be the result of a conspiracy among scientists according to your view. By the way, Earth shaped like a prolate spheroid is nevertheless a "ball" - contrary to your previous claim that Cassini's results were not consistent with a "ball earth". You twisted the facts to support your dogma.
  6. Dr Zack's video is gone. It seems that his "proof" didn't work.
  7. @Ukshep If I want to know whether a specific video has already been posted - Is there a way to search for a video using the link to the video in question?
  8. Arcs of latitude shortening towards the pole - this is NOT impossible on a globe, it would be consistent with a prolate spheroid. If these people were so brilliant they would recognize this fact immediately. Please stop claiming this nonsense that shortening latitudes disprove a globe earth. You have been reading articles about Cassini's measurements, therefore you should know better.
  9. A few flat earthers have tried it and they failed miserably, because mapping the earth from star positions is a well-known method to show that the earth is a globe. You don't have to believe me - I'm sure you won't - just try it for yourself.
  10. Dr Zack thinks that atmospheric refraction is a very important aspect of the flat earth model:
  11. Several people - especially @VonLud - have posted detailed explanations for the phenomena you mentioned, and if I remember correctly, then you have even replied to some of VonLud's comments. But now you claim that you never got any reply to your objections? Faulty memory or lack of honesty? I have NEVER seen a reply from you or others which addressed any argument about curvature, refraction, star trails etc. "fairly and in depth." But I have seen a lot of evasive answers like "it's fake ..." "it's irrelevant ..." "it's just a theory ..." "this experiment has never been repeated ..." "math is worthless ..." "I don't believe it ..." "Really?" ... Exactly. For example: if flat earth believers think that refraction doesn't exist or that it works differently than the description given in physics textbooks about optics, then it is up to you to disprove mainstream physics - and not the other way around. I've mentioned refraction because people like theMorgile are posting youtube videos where they claim that the standard explanation of refraction is wrong - without providing any evidence supporting this statement.
  12. Come on, grav. The link is a map demonstrating the flight path from Sydney to Santiago on a flat map; it should be obvious why the flight route on the Gleason map is even longer than the diameter of the flat earth.
  13. You called my remark silly without giving any reasons. Did you compare a few calculations with and without taking the elevation of the observer into account? I guess you didn't. I will display both calculations with regard to a specific and well-known example in another post. You are twisting my words here; I didn't say that the calculation of the curvature is unimportant or useless. But you should use a formula which takes the most important parameters like the elevation of the observer into account, even if you have to abandon your "eight inches times miles squared" in favor of a more appropriate but a bit more complex formula. Furthermore you used a very general wording here: "many of the mainstream formulae presented for curvature of the horizon" - how many mainstream formulae do you know? It is impossible to debate such a general and unspecific claim. At least the formulae in the wikipedia link take the elevation of the observer into account, and wikipedia is in no way more advanced than mainstream science.
  14. Take a look at the article; there is a post from TWCobra: Either the guy who claimed that he was unable to book a flight between Sydney and Santiago was lying or he distorted the facts - that's obvious to me. This issue was already addressed by Mick West, the admin of the website. Here is the flight path on a flat earth map: https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/