Flat Earth

[jtc]

The stick thing doesn't really prove anything
You see if the sun is a lot closer than has been taught, then if it was over one stick at midday then it would cause the other stick far away to cast a shadow

[VapingBad]

Feb 19, 2016 20:13:35 GMT jtc said:

Hmmm well I seen this clever guy just.
He reckons he has modern day software that proves they are telling us lies about how far the sun is away.
Also like many that the flat earth map needs redrawing to be more accurate.
Very interesting and actual real measurements this is looking like

    not a clever guy, quite the opposite, all he proved is the FE map is unworkable and he does not understand what the hell he is doing.   He took calculated angles from a google earth, calculated from using the real distance to the Sun and the surface position of points on the globe (there are more faults) and applied them to something completely different

www.astronomyforbeginners.com/astronomy/howknow.php

Feb 19, 2016 20:24:11 GMT jtc said:

The stick thing doesn't really prove anything
You see if the sun is a lot closer than has been taught, then if it was over one stick at midday then it would cause the other stick far away to cast a shadow

It totally proves it, if you do a series of these > 2 then the angles on inclination will not cross at a single point (direction of the Sun) on anything other than a sphere. It has been done hundreds if not thousands of times in the last 2,100 years and works every time unlike the numpty with AutoCad who head to keep adjusting the map to fit the data.

So still zero evidence of a Flat Earth, but masses for a globe.

ETA
If the Sun were only 3000 miles away like the AutoCad numpty says then the Moon would be 7.5 miles away or only 2 miles higher than Everest, because basic geometry tells us the Sun is 400 times the distance of the Moon from the Earth.  So lets hope the Moon is smaller than 15 miles diameter or it will be rolling on the surface of the Earth.

[blakey]

If you watch a sunset then we are told that the sun is falling below the horizon due to the curvature of the earth which is a rotating mass.
So it then stands to reason on a flat earth scenario that the same sunset could be prolonged by the use of a telescope because it would then remain in view for an extra length of time depending on the power of the telescope because the sun is moving away rather than falling below.
The sun is no-where to be found once it falls from view regardless of the magnification added to a persons eyes.

Or is the fact that we're told not to look at the sun through magnified lenses part of the government conspiracy

[Postmodern Smoking]

Illustrating blakey 's comments:

[jtc]

Feb 19, 2016 21:58:09 GMT blakey said:

If you watch a sunset then we are told that the sun is falling below the horizon due to the curvature of the earth which is a rotating mass.
So it then stands to reason on a flat earth scenario that the same sunset could be prolonged by the use of a telescope because it would then remain in view for an extra length of time depending on the power of the telescope because the sun is moving away rather than falling below.
The sun is no-where to be found once it falls from view regardless of the magnification added to a persons eyes.

Or is the fact that we're told not to look at the sun through magnified lenses part of the government conspiracy

Yes like everything will eventually disappear over the horizon
And they were using a telescope from the beginning

[jtc]

Feb 19, 2016 21:07:20 GMT VapingBad said:

Feb 19, 2016 20:13:35 GMT jtc said:

Hmmm well I seen this clever guy just.
He reckons he has modern day software that proves they are telling us lies about how far the sun is away.
Also like many that the flat earth map needs redrawing to be more accurate.
Very interesting and actual real measurements this is looking like

    not a clever guy, quite the opposite, all he proved is the FE map is unworkable and he does not understand what the hell he is doing.   He took calculated angles from a google earth, calculated from using the real distance to the Sun and the surface position of points on the globe (there are more faults) and applied them to something completely different

www.astronomyforbeginners.com/astronomy/howknow.php

Feb 19, 2016 20:24:11 GMT jtc said:

The stick thing doesn't really prove anything
You see if the sun is a lot closer than has been taught, then if it was over one stick at midday then it would cause the other stick far away to cast a shadow

It totally proves it, if you do a series of these > 2 then the angles on inclination will not cross at a single point (direction of the Sun) on anything other than a sphere. It has been done hundreds if not thousands of times in the last 2,100 years and works every time unlike the numpty with AutoCad who head to keep adjusting the map to fit the data.

So still zero evidence of a Flat Earth, but masses for a globe.

ETA
If the Sun were only 3000 miles away like the AutoCad numpty says then the Moon would be 7.5 miles away or only 2 miles higher than Everest, because basic geometry tells us the Sun is 400 times the distance of the Moon from the Earth.  So lets hope the Moon is smaller than 15 miles diameter or it will be rolling on the surface of the Earth.

He took his first measurements from a globe perspective according to Google earth calculations yes.
Even using a globe perspective it showed the sun being that close.
They believe the moon circles us at the same level as the sun

[jtc]

Still no proof of a curve anywhere

[Greg]

And still no proof it's flat

[jtc]

I know yeah as Toya would say
It's a mysthery

[Bob]

Feb 19, 2016 15:12:29 GMT VapingBad said:

Feb 19, 2016 14:59:31 GMT jtc said:

There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

This is completely wrong: 

the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

Especially the misconception it falls but a foot.   The main sources of The White Nile is Lake Victoria 1,133 m altitude and The Blue Nile is Lake Tana 1,788 m altitude much more than a foot.

The Nile is absolutely consistent with a globe, gravity causes water to want to come to rest at the lowest altitude, flow downhill.

You forgot the most important answer, if the world was flat the water would stay in the lake and the lake would just grow and grow and grow in size as more rainfall added to the lake and eventually flood all the land around it.

[thebishman]

Feb 20, 2016 18:26:42 GMT Bob said:

Feb 19, 2016 15:12:29 GMT VapingBad said:

This is completely wrong: 
Especially the misconception it falls but a foot.   The main sources of The White Nile is Lake Victoria 1,133 m altitude and The Blue Nile is Lake Tana 1,788 m altitude much more than a foot.

The Nile is absolutely consistent with a globe, gravity causes water to want to come to rest at the lowest altitude, flow downhill.

You forgot the most important answer, if the world was flat the water would stay in the lake and the lake would just grow and grow and grow in size as more rainfall added to the lake and eventually flood all the land around it.

Why would it? What difference wpuld it make?

[Bob]

Feb 20, 2016 18:28:39 GMT thebishman said:

Feb 20, 2016 18:26:42 GMT Bob said:

You forgot the most important answer, if the world was flat the water would stay in the lake and the lake would just grow and grow and grow in size as more rainfall added to the lake and eventually flood all the land around it.

Why would it? What difference wpuld it make?

Because instead of eroding away just one point forming a river, where gravity takes the water, it would just chomp away at all the edges of the lake at the same time.
You wouldn't end up with rivers, as the water would just remain in the lake, rainfall would just soak into the land and possibly cause more lakes, which would eventually get larger, and take away all the land.

Why did I come into this thread in the first place, it's driving me NUTS.

[Postmodern Smoking]

(Stolen 'Borrowed' from konky/tubthumper)

[jtc]

[VapingBad]

Leap year day for us on a globe that's solar orbit is 365.25 days Tease-smiley