Community > Posts By > flyingdutch93
Topic:
Flat Earth
|
|
How about you take some flights around the Southern Hemisphere? You'll see the distances will be the same as those northern hemisphere counter parts.
"It is not absolutely the shortest route; as the earth is a plane, the degrees of longitude in the south must diverge or expand, " Which they absolutely do not :) The lines of longitude beyond the equator converge. Woops? |
|
|
|
Topic:
Flat Earth
|
|
"there is no stellar parallax"
How would you know? "you rely solely on unfathomable numbers that no one can detect" "Unfathomable numbers" are necessarily predicted by geometry given certain conditions are met. Those conditions are met. "same case for curvature" Which can be observed on a day-to-day basis. "gravity" Acceleration towards the Earth's surface. "mass attraction" Cavendish experiment. "toilets flush in different directions in different basins and toilets in the same house... I've tried it.." And no individual educated in physics would argue that to be the result of the Earth being a sphere or the coriolis effect. "flat earthers have actually studied the globe" Funny, because I've yet to meet one capable of performing basic geometric calculations, understand refraction, understand heliocentric motion and understand how to focus a telescope. "read Eric Dubay's "200 Proofs the Earth is not a Spinning Ball", for starters.." Already did years ago. Complete and utter bunk. "NO curvature has EVER been seen or detected" Yes it has. "high altitude balloons have taken 360 degree footage from 120 thousand feet and it is level all the way around" Nope. "I can PROVE you wrong, the horizon RISES as you ascend.." Nope you can't. "and remains at your eye LEVEL, no matter how high you go" Nope. "if you were on a ball, the horizon would fall away from you in all directions as you ascend" Correct, which is precisely what occurs. The horizon dip angle is calculated by taking the arcsin of (distance horizon/(radius + observer height)). |
|
|
|
Topic:
Flat Earth
Edited by
flyingdutch93
on
Fri 04/05/19 06:53 AM
|
|
"Constellations have always remained the same for thousands of years"
Actually, no they haven't. Stellar parallax can be measured across the year, with constellations changing due to proper motion across much larger timespans. "impossible if the Earth was spinning and hurtling around the sun as the sun shoots through the imaginary galaxy.. " Works just fine. You just don't understand the distance and scale involved. "Water sticking to exterior of any object is so ridiculous I can barely hold back my laughter. " Water sticks to objects just fine. It's called surface tension. Droplets stick just fine when the object is rotating producing a centripetal acceleration equal to that of Earth over 24 hours. In fact, thin films of water sticking to objects represent much deeper oceans than Earth has. And that ignores gravity, which is relatively non-existent for small scale objects. "Do some research and stop regurgitating the script you've been provided with by MOVIE actors such as Neil DeGrasee Tyson and Bill Nye... flippin Disney characters.. FFS " The only one regurgitating a script is you. All your talking points are demonstrably incorrect and complete misrepresentations of the science involved. Flat earthers do precisely what they falsely accuse their opponents of. |
|
|
|
Never got taught evolutionary biology. Never got taught the Bible or any other religious scripture either. Decided to read the scientific literature on antropology, paleontology, geology, genetics, developmental biology and biochemistry and was blown away. Evolutionary theory is truly the most comprehensive, simplest and most verified explanation for earth's biodiversity. The evolutionary plasticity of gene networks is amazing.
Then I listend to young earth creationists and all they had were generally three arguments; 'The Bible is to be read literally and thus is literally correct, except the part where it literally states the earth's flat', 'Scientists are wrong. End of story.', 'here let me quotemine the scientific literature and lie by omission'. |
|
|