- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are "they" so obsessed with mentions of 'FLAT EARTH'? Just a silly "CT", right?
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:12 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:12 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
See... the Earth isn't spherical either in the ball Earth model. It's pear shaped. Fatter at the bottom than at the top. Does your trig account for that??
It’s not larger at the bottom in any scenario.
It slightly bulges at the equator. Due to centrifugal force of rotation. Not the Southern Hemisphere.
1
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:12 pm to Roger Klarvin
Back again for another clock-cleaning?
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:13 pm to BoarEd
quote:
There is no "bottom" of a sphere. It's as I suspected. This is above your pay grade.
The area below the equator is fatter than that above the equator. That better??
Again, you should read up on the sphere Earth model.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:13 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
It slightly bulges at the equator. Due to centrifugal force of rotation. Not the Southern Hemisphere.
This isn't the opinion of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
"U.S. Vanguard 1 satellite data from 1958 confirms that the southern equatorial bulge is greater than that of the north, which is corroborated by the South Pole's sea level being lower than that of the north.[8] A pear-shaped Earth had first been theorized in 1498 by Christopher Columbus, based on his incorrect readings of the North Star's diurnal motion.[9]"
Figure of the Earth wikipedia
This post was edited on 5/26/22 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:14 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
A fricking quarter is fricking round, right? But it isn't a fricking ball.
Umm...YUP.
Something this simple ought to register at some point.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:15 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
The area below the equator is fatter than that above the equator.
This is not true. It's as clever user name said, it bulges at the equator due to centrifugal force. Which is exactly as to be expected with a spinning sphere. And yes, this is known by people who's job it is to map the Earth.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:16 pm to Liberator
quote:
Eventually even mountains and the Empire State Building fall beyond our site line due to distance-perspectives.
Mountains and the Empire State Building is on your flat earth. It’s on the plane.
Polaris is above the plane. It has height.
Take a pen and a piece of paper. Place the tip of the pen two inches above the flat piece of paper. Lay your head flat on the table at the corner of the paper.
Can you see the pen tip??
Why did line of sight did not obstruct your view?
And man… we haven’t even gotten to prevailing winds yet. That should be a doozy.
This post was edited on 5/26/22 at 12:18 pm
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:16 pm to BoarEd
quote:
This is not true. It's as clever user name said, it bulges at the equator due to centrifugal force. Which is exactly as to be expected with a spinning sphere. And yes, this is known by people who's job it is to map the Earth.
This is a common theory as well. I'm simply pointing out that the science isn't settled as to the shape of the Earth. Any suggestion that it is is merely accepted by faith and not knowledge.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:18 pm to BoarEd
quote:
This thread is stupid.
Why are you participating in a "stupid" thread?
quote:
I've done land surveying work where we regularly had to account for curvature of the Earth in order to make the calculations work. Ask any professional land surveyor (who's fricking job it is to map the Earth) what they think about this theory and they will laugh in your face.
bullshite. 100%. You are just taught and programmed to "account" for it. Doesn't make it true.
NOBODY is "accounting" for "curvature". NOBODY who builds railways, bridges OR roads does either.
And guess what? PILOTS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR EARTH CURVATURE WHEN FLYING.
(ask them if they must continually "point the nose DOWNWARD" of their jet or plane. P.S. -- THEY WILL LAUGH AT YOU)
This post was edited on 5/26/22 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:20 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
I'm simply pointing out that the science isn't settled as to the shape of the Earth.
This is because the shape of the Earth is constantly changing. Again, surveyors have to account for this too. They put permanent GPS stations on major mountains and all over the place really to monitor these changes so they can continually refine their calculations to stay as accurate as possible. But it is always changing. Again, this is to be expected if you live on a rotating sphere with tectonic plates. Constant state of flux. We see it in the surveying industry.
If it was as the retard brigade suggests we wouldn't see any of those changes.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:21 pm to CleverUserName
This has been explained repeatedly. Due to Perspective + Distance limitations, yes even Polaris winds up OUT OF SIGHT of southern locations.
(Now it's up to you to research it if you disbelieve it.)
(Now it's up to you to research it if you disbelieve it.)
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:21 pm to Liberator
quote:
Bull shite. 100%. You are just taught and programmed to "account" for it. Doesn't make it true.
Negative.. if you do not, the math begins to place you at two separate points the farther away from each other the farther you get from the survey points.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:22 pm to Liberator
quote:
All "Gravity" is, is DENSITY.
This is fascinating stuff. How you not only believe this bullshite, you actually believe in it so much that you've moved on to proselytizing. I've heard of FEs, never actually interacted with one. Turns out, everything people say about y'all is surprisingly accurate.
BTW, champ, Archimedes' Principle deals with buoyancy, not gravity.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:22 pm to Liberator
quote:
bullshite. 100%. You are just taught and programmed to "account" for it. Doesn't make it true.
frick off with this shite. Yes, land surveyors have to consider curvature of the Earth when conducting large scale land surveys. Largest one I ever did was a water line that was over 100 miles long. All properties along that route had to be surveyed. If we didn't account for curvature the survey wouldn't have worked. Period.
This guy's idea of debating is simply denying everything the other side has to say. Like a child.
This post was edited on 5/26/22 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:23 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
I'm simply pointing out that the science isn't settled as to the shape of the Earth.
First, this doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Secondly, I'm extremely skeptical you can even define the mathematical basis of Earth's curvature.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:24 pm to Liberator
quote:
Due to Perspective + Distance limitations, yes even Polaris winds up OUT OF SIGHT of southern locations.
Amazing.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:24 pm to Liberator
Nope. It has not.
It has not been explained to me why I can see a pen tip placed two inches above a sheet of paper and line of sight does not interfere.
At the same time you claim line of sight is a reason you cannot see it on a flat earth.
There is no line of sight limitations to an object in the sky on a flat earth. It’s too far away? Magnification is available.
Your use of “line of sight” is actually detrimental to your entire argument.
It has not been explained to me why I can see a pen tip placed two inches above a sheet of paper and line of sight does not interfere.
At the same time you claim line of sight is a reason you cannot see it on a flat earth.
There is no line of sight limitations to an object in the sky on a flat earth. It’s too far away? Magnification is available.
Your use of “line of sight” is actually detrimental to your entire argument.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:25 pm to BoarEd
quote:
We see it in the surveying industry.
I'd love to see some evidence of what you are suggesting, and since you claim to work in that industry, perhaps you can provide some of that evidence on this forum?
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:26 pm to BoarEd
quote:
rotating sphere
Homes, you cannot prove ANY thing is "spinning" OR moving an inch. FACT.
Planes do NOT account for a "spinning rotating earth". SO SEZ NASA's OFFICIAL Manuals. Oh, and Army and AF manual.Fact.
quote:
tectonic plates.
Whole different subject.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 12:27 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
I'd love to see some evidence of what you are suggesting, and since you claim to work in that industry, perhaps you can provide some of that evidence on this forum?
I used to work in that industry. Not anymore. And what sort of evidence would satisfy you? Google can tell ya anything I would tell you. It's all trigonometry.
Page 8 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News