The earth is flat

@Coveny - Well I am on the side of facts and truth rather than faith and .

LOL, .. if your "faith" is , like that you believe in a globe Earth which there is no evidence for, and that there are planets that no man has seen before, .. in an imaginary space where no man has gone before;



than that is "fact" for you. And since it's , then this becomes your "Religion" because you defend it without any evidence. So like every Religion, you support with blind faith, which you call science.

Don't you see how delusional this is?

Coveny said:

Evidence said:

@Coveny - Well I am on the side of facts and truth rather than faith and .

LOL, .. if your "faith" is , like that you believe in a globe Earth which there is no evidence for, and that there are planets that no man has seen before, .. in an imaginary space where no man has gone before;

than that is "fact" for you. And since it's , then this becomes your "Religion" because you defend it without any evidence. So like every Religion, you support with blind faith, which you call science.

Don't you see how delusional this is?

No evidence for globe earth... really? Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists agree there is evidence for a globe. But no "Evidence" says there is not evidence so he trumps them all. pfft

And he talks about imaginary space while worshiping something imaginary...

Yes I see how delusional you are.

Reminds me of another religious argument I heard.

@Coveny - Hopefully you understand that speed is a scale. The term faster means moving up that scale. Speed and time are linked in someway we don't currently understand.

Speed is a scale? So on a scale of 1 - 10, where would you put 'speed' at?

Don't understand, yet you want to debate me about it? The ONLY time speed and time are linked together is when we measure/clock two objects distancing from each other, and neither clock (or human) would know which one is actually moving, much alone how fast.

For instance, let's use Star Trek AKA Einstein's Relativity physics; if you were asleep on the USS Enterprise, and suddenly woke up, looked outside a window and seen Klinzhai (Klingon planet) moving away from you, there is no way you could measure/calculate/ who is moving and who is not?

Like your Globe-Earth, it is supposedly spinning, twirling, orbiting in all kinds of directions (@Erfisflat said something like close to the speed of light), at the same time, all these speeds, especially if even the low speed of a Airliner has a measurable effect on time dilation, .. would have an effect, so how the heck did they get a time difference?

Fine, you will probably say: "The clock on the plane, relative to the clock on the ground", .. if so, then here is your problem;

Let's say you were on a Space Ship Carrier traveling at 0.2C (your Speed of Light) away from Earth.
Your Globe-Earth is orbiting your sun, so when it makes the opposite 180 deg. turn, the Carrier-Earth speed will increase, and will have a greater effect on your Time Dilation, .. got it? Remember, the faster you go, the greater the Time dilation effect, right!?

See how idiotic this whole "special Relativity" story is?
Now let's say you've been traveling for two years away from Earth, and suddenly a Black Hole appeared near Earth, and started to draw the earth into it, increasing your Carrier-Earth speed, .. who will feel the "Time Dilation" affect?
Is it the people on Earth, .. or you and your crew in the ISS Enterprise that is being carried by the Carrier?

Coveny - You may be sure but I don't agree as previously stated. Neither clock is stationary when we talk at a universal level.

Well duh, .. "speed' is the cause of time dilation, right? You could be experiencing 99.9% of time dilation already and won't even know it? So tell me, what is causing the clock on the plane to dilate?

Coveny - But I will give you at a "relative level" if you are on the plane A is correct, and if you are on the ground B is correct.

Really? Have you ever heard of the Twin Paradox? You know, where Relativists confuse themselves even more that they already are!?

Coveny - The clocks don't need to move further apart or increase the distance for this effect to occur, that statement is erroneous.

Aha! So it IS speed, very well then. Here is a little problem for you BB'ers, how the hell did these two geniuses Hafele-Keating measure speed? Was it "relative" to the ground? If so, what magical effect did the Plane-clock experience as it traveled over the ground?
Was it "wind speed"? If so, did the wind going over the plane cause some magical effect on the plane-clock?

Coveny - Speed is not just two objects "distancing" from each other. Think of a drag car on a round race track if you need help visualizing this.

I'm not the one who needs help visualizing this, it is all the Globetard's who need help.
So HOW do you measure the speed of a drag car? Isn't it as it passes over the ground, and we mark a point on the ground to measure the "distance" traveled by the time?
Yes it is, so don't tell me it's not "distancing". Without distancing, you couldn't get speed.

Now here is another little example, please tell me the time-dilation on this?
Let's take two planes with atomic clocks on each of them, zero each out, both take off the same direction going 600mph.

a) will any of the two clocks traveling at 600mph feel any "time dilation" between each other? Remember they are traveling side by side in the same direction, the same speed!

You will say: "No dilation between them because they are both traveling 600 mph, right?" And that they are both experiencing dilation from the ground-clock, or "relative to earth", .. right?

Why?

You will say: "Because the ground-clock is stationary to the ground, and the two planes are distancing over the ground at 600mph".

So you see, this "distancing over the ground" that has this magical effect on the plane clock, .. but why not on the ground clock?

Coveny - Speed can be relative but that's a bit misleading. If I'm sitting in a train doing 300 mph, relative I'm stationery, but if the speed abruptly stops then I would feel the speed I hadn't felt before. Faster speed on one clock causes the time dilation.

What?? What do you mean "stop"? What does "stop" mean when you're still traveling at 666 million, thousand mph through space!?
Do you mean "travel at the same speed with the other clock"?

If so, then what happens when you take off with your ship off a Space-Carrier that's traveling at 0.2C relative to Earth, heading in the same direction with the Carrier, only at 0.3 C?

Now relative to the clock on the Carrier, you would be traveling at 0.1C and experiencing the 0.1C FASTER time-dilation between the Carrier clock and yours, right? (on the Carrier, both your clock on your ship and the Carriers were running the same, right? It's all relative to Earth, or the "distancing" from Earth, correct?)

Now pay attention here please? So what happens if, instead of going 0.1C faster than the Carrier (which is traveling away from Earth), .. you take off with your ship the opposite direction, .. towards Earth at 0.3C?

a) will the clock on your ship be experiencing the 0.3C relative to the Carrier?

b) or 0.5C distancing from the Carrier (Carrier traveling 0.2 + and you going the opposite direction at 0.3 = 0.5C)?

c) or will your ships clock experience a "negative dilation", .. the 0.2C original speed of the Carrier going away from earth, minus now the speed you are going back towards the Earth at 0.3C, which would be negative -0.1C (0.2C away on the Carrier, and now going back towards Earth at 0.3C) makes it -0.1C .. ??
So Please tell me "which relative to" speed time dilation you would be experiencing?

Coveny - Yes why is the tough question. That is correct they have not figured it out.

Come on Coveny, just say the truth: "They haven't come up with an acceptable B.S. to which even a 2nd grader like me couldn't laugh at."

Coveny - And now we are back to the faster part. Time dilation is a law/theory of physics (theory doesn't mean the same thing to scientists as what's used in common speech) so A and B both work just from different observers. No all observers are not stationary... where do you get this crap? This is getting beyond my knowledge levels but if you observer something while accelerating it seems to affect the laws of physics in some way, this would create no change on A and B. Viewing movement doesn't mean the laws of physics have been affected.

Yes, all observers are stationary relative to where they are at, the guy/clock at the station is stationary relative to the station, and the guy/clock on the train, to the train.
If I clock you running at 15mph, it is relative to what?
The Earth, right? So this "crap" as you call it is actually YOUR Sci-Fi crap, as your Einstein taught you so stick to it, or leave all this Religious behind and join us F.E.'s 

Now here is the "crap" I am hoping to open your eyes to, so you would not be fooled:

Google - The surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second--or roughly 1,000 miles per hour. As schoolchildren, we learn that the earth is moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. It covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour. The Earth and all--whirls around the center of our galaxy at some 220 kilometers per second, or 490,000 miles per hour. As we consider increasingly large size scales, the speeds involved become absolutely huge! The galaxies in our neighborhood are also rushing at a speed of nearly 1,000 kilometers per second towards a structure called the Great Attractor!

So you see, according to your BB-Story, everything is traveling, so you are stuck with calculating things "relative to where you are standing", or putting yourself in a certain relative position and calculate from there. And as I have shown you, it is totally idiotic, and can ONLY be acceptable in your Religious Sci-Fi Universe sprinkled with redshift Pixy dust.

Coveny - Einstein was forced? Where is your proof of this? 

You can see it in his letters, especially in his comments on "Relativity". "If they accept it and I'm right, I will be remembered as a German Scientist, if it's denied, I will be just another Jew!"

Coveny - People have expanded and corrected Einsteins work in many ways, science has figured it out. Yes I'm going to believe they landed a rover on a PLANET called mars. I have much more proof for that than you do of your sky fairies.

Here is NASA's and CERN's sky fairies, they came out of the Big-Bang!

 

My, .. our Creator is the scientifically observable/understandable, .. undeniable, uncreated, Only One Possible God that you will never find in any of your theist/atheist beliefs/Religions!

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Evidence said:

@Coveny - Well I am on the side of facts and truth rather than faith and .

LOL, .. if your "faith" is , like that you believe in a globe Earth which there is no evidence for, and that there are planets that no man has seen before, .. in an imaginary space where no man has gone before;

than that is "fact" for you. And since it's , then this becomes your "Religion" because you defend it without any evidence. So like every Religion, you support with blind faith, which you call science.

Don't you see how delusional this is?

No evidence for globe earth... really? Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists agree there is evidence for a globe. But no "Evidence" says there is not evidence so he trumps them all. pfft

And he talks about imaginary space while worshiping something imaginary...

Yes I see how delusional you are.

Reminds me of another religious argument I heard.

Well you started off the personal incredulity fallacy that there is no evidence for a globe, and given the number of fallacies you use I thought maybe for it to be evidence in your mind it had to come from a fallacy. Fighting fire with fire if you will

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

" Yes I'm going to believe they landed a rover on a PLANET called mars"

Wait, atheists don't have a belief system do they?

Oh look a strawman fallacy. I can believe something without having a belief system... try again.

You believe the earth is a ball without witness, you believe it to be spinning, without witness, you believe a magical nothing explosion made everything without witness...i could go on.

@Evidence Yes speed is a scale. No not 1 – 10, 0 through the speed of light. (exceptions may apply) Where is speed at? … everywhere there is movement. Just like torque is at everywhere something is being torqued. You really don’t understand science at all.

anymore

Coveny said:

@Evidence Yes speed is a scale. No not 1 – 10, 0 through the speed of light. (exceptions may apply) Where is speed at? … everywhere there is movement. Just like torque is at everywhere something is being torqued. You really don’t understand science at all.

I actually don’t want to debate you, but I feel like I need to because you are spreading religion disguised as anti-science . I’d much rather debate more interesting topics rather than having to trudge through topics that were decided before I was born, and have no new information in them. No speed and time are linked. That you think you must measure something to make it exist shows your complete lack of understanding of science. Even if no one measures it time and speed are still linked. Measuring it makes no difference whatsoever.

Measuring speed between two objects in space… hmm yes you could measure speed with light from other objects, but why would you move away from Klingon BiHnuch.

I like globe, no it’s not “spinning, twirling, orbiting in all kinds of directions”. Wow you are so bad at science. It’s not moving near the speed of light which I’ve already been through, so no not “close to the speed of light”. Moving 500 mph faster for several hours nets you time dilatation in the nanoseconds. I don’t think you can comprehend how small of an effect time delineation is.

Yes that story is idiotic, if you try to do a 180 at the speed of light you die. 

There will be no time dilation because the black hole will consume earth so there won’t be another time source to compare against the space ship.

Yes speed is the cause of time dilation. Correct you could and are likely experiencing time dilations right now and don’t know/notice it. The cause of the time dilation of the clock on the plane is the 500mph faster than the ground. Time dilation requires two sources.

No I had not heard of the twin paradox, high end time science isn’t a passion of mine. Again we don’t have a good understand of time, nor do we have a good way to measure it. Give us some time. (see what I did there?)

A plane calculates speed by measuring the pressure created by air that flows past an airplane as it moves forward. As for how Hafele-Keating measured air speed I can only assume it was with that method as they used commercial airplanes. No magical effect, magic doesn’t exist. The wind may had had some speed I wasn’t there, and could have affected the test in some way. Again, no magic.

If you don’t need help, then why don’t you understand it’s not two objects distancing themselves? Cars generally measure speed by rotations of the axis. (Fun fact going to smaller or larger tires on your car will mess up your speedometer) No point on the ground is mark. I mean we aren’t talking about difficult science at this point why are you having such a hard time understanding this? No it’s not “distancing” just as when you go in circle over and over and not increasing your distance, but you are still speeding along just fine. Again you still don’t seem like you comprehend this stuff.

You answer your own question, and then ask me why? Just as two clocks sitting next to each other on a planet moving through the universe don’t see time dilation, the clocks on the plane won’t either because there is no difference in speed. Also it’s not relative to the earth it’s relative to the other clock, it doesn’t matter in this example, but you should keep the subtle difference in mind.

Now you added a ground clock? That wasn’t in the example before, so no I won’t say that. Again the ground doesn’t matter just the two planes. No magic. If you add a ground clock to the experiment it will be different because the planes were going 600 mph faster than the ground clock so there will be time dilation.

The example I gave was a train going 300 mph, and relative to the train changing speed to 0 mph or “stopping”. How do you have a hard time understanding what stopping means? No, we aren’t traveling 666 million mph through space, it’s only about 1.34 million miles per hour, not to be confused with the speed of light which is 671 million mph. (but 666 sure does have that theist vibe to it)

20% of the speed of light has nothing to do with “relative to earth”. Also 30% the speed of light is faster than 20% of the speed of light so the second ship would overtake the first one. The second ship is going 10% of the speed of light faster, so that is what time dilation is based off of, so no they would not have the same times relative to each other or a clock on earth. 

Direction doesn’t matter on time dilation, only speed as I understand it. So going 0.3C in different directions from earth would create no time dilation between the ships.

A) The escape pod is going 0.3C and the second ship is going 0.3C so no time delineation.

You changed to the first ship doing 0.2C. The second ship is going 0.1C faster than the first ship, so you are confusing your example here (after telling ME to pay attention?!?!), but the difference between the escape pod and the first ship is 0.1C worth of time dilation. 

C) No, it will not experience negative time dilation.

I did say the truth. I get that with sky fairies it’s better to pretend you know the answers when you don’t, but I don’t roll like that, and neither does science.

It’s relative to the device that clocked the speed. (say a radar gun) Again the earth is not the anchor point you seem to make it. Time dilation is the difference between the speeds of two object with or without the earth present. Flat Earth is the religious … 

It doesn’t matter if everything is traveling for time dilation we just need to compare the difference between two object’s speeds. Just because you fail to comprehend this doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

You proof that he was forces is that he was worried about his work being accepted by his peers? Are you serious?

And we’re back to your uncreated creator and you being an atheist who believes in him. The contradictions… they burn.

Erfisflat said:

@Evidence I retracted my statement about moving at the speed of light, it is supposedly 800 miles per second (as if it's any more believable)

I know, right? They always use an 'approximate' the speed of light, round it up to some number, (like 800 mps) and I know why? Just like with all the other BB-created , they don't want us to concentrate on the "number", this is why it is not only "rounded off", but the letter C is used to define it, .. lol. Our GPS supposedly uses the speed of light, and they round it off, or use C, now how obvious is that?

"Yeah, .. umm, the speed of light is, umm, about 180,000, err, 800 mps, but using C in any formula is the most accurate. It will guide your car right to your driveway!" .. lol.

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

" Yes I'm going to believe they landed a rover on a PLANET called mars"

Wait, atheists don't have a belief system do they?

Oh look a strawman fallacy. I can believe something without having a belief system... try again.

You believe the earth is a ball without witness, you believe it to be spinning, without witness, you believe a magical nothing explosion made everything without witness...i could go on.

We believe the Earth is a ball because we've witnessed images taken form space.
We believe the Earth is spinning because we witness the altering positions of celestial bodies over 24 hour and yearly cycles.
You supposedly disbelieve, because of some crazy paranoid theory, that government and government bodies are conspiring against you. Without witness.

As for what made everything, no one knows. Because there were no witnesses to this event.

Erfisflat said:

@Coveny but you refuse to believe your senses and reality.

No you are the one who refuses to believe reality. Instead you prefer to live in fantasies were the answer to everything is "god did it", scare of the unknown you simply can't handle reality.

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Neil tyson said time stops when you reach the speed of light, so is a light year?

Wow man you twist so much. Time slows down the closer you get to the speed of light but it doesn't stop.

From a bit of research you are taking Tyson's comment on protons out of context. His position is that because protons don't have mass they don't experience time, or as he put it time stops, and their travel is instantaneous. I'm not going to pretend I understand the physics involved, but it seems there is some debate on whether or not that's true as it may just be a matter of us not being able to observe/understand protons interaction with time yet. This is his opinion on the topic, and how it works, not scientific consensus. (scientist like to hypothesis as much as the rest of us.... maybe more so) I did not research it enough to know if his opinion is the leading opinion on the matter or not.

As for what is a light year: The distance that light travels in one earth year through a void/vacuum. So it's a measurement of distance like a mile or KM, but much larger. Each 93 million miles is an astronomical unit and there are 63,000 A.U. in a light year, or 5.88 trillion miles.

Any more questions?

LOL, .. nope, that about does it, you answered it all, the old religious "Because I said so"  way, because, .. again, your sci-fi-science doesn't understand light yet. Yet

But wait, .. just one more question?

Photons, .. If it has energy, according to Einstein's famous equation of general relativity, it has mass: M = E/C2. We know also that light is bent by gravity. So if we think of light as being particulate, a stream of photons, it must weigh something, otherwise gravity wouldn't have any effect upon it.  - Theguardian.com/UK

How can light travel at 186,282 m.p.s. be effected/bent by gravity, AND be instantaneous at the same time? Are you trying to pull a fast one again @Coveny , .. huh?

Both Newton's gravity, and  Einstein's special Relativity is , just as the rest of the expanding BB story with all the supporting  non-existent magical particles created to support the BB story is.  .. his whole E=MC^2 symbol is useless, good only to decorate arrogant College students sweaters to make Globetard's think he is smart.
But wait, this explains E=MC2

Using a cat, and a rocket ship, and space to describe light that everyone is familiar with? A cat emitting a flash of light?? Hey NASA-kid, that was brilliant, .. if you were a dog, or an evolving, not quite ripe ape!?

Science leans toward photons not having mass. Light isn’t instantons, because light has mass. Now as to why photons aren’t believed to have mass, but light does is something we don’t understand. Again though this is high end crap, and I don’t understand the contradiction between the accepted beliefs that photon don’t have mass but light does. I would like to reiterate that the opinion that photons don’t have mass has not been proven via science even if that is the direction science is leaning in.

E=MC^2 predicts the outcome… so it is useful by anyone standards… well it seems anyone buy you.

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

@Coveny but you refuse to believe your senses and reality.

No you are the one who refuses to believe reality. Instead you prefer to live in fantasies were the answer to everything is "god did it", scare of the unknown you simply can't handle reality.

@Coveny - No you are the one who refuses to believe reality.

Now that was funny, since the entire Globe Earth, the Moon landing in a studio, Mars landing somewhere in Greenland, Satellite balloons, planets, redshit-gasses left over from an imaginary BB that a Jesuit Priest hallucinated while praying his Rosary and whipping himself senseless, .. all this is science fiction stories from the Supernatural realm, divined by demonic beings to human mediums who took years of studying these deities, and have gotten even their doctorates in "Divinity" so they could better divine for these deities which they program into our heads in church from the pulpit. Also we got this from reading comic books as teens, and watching Children's Programming on TV, .. and some other very religious folk at 666CERN contacting deities like Shiva and passing this information down to us in the form of science!

I mean come on Coveny, we are seriously beginning to worry about your mental state? Maybe all this New information on how we been lied to for hundreds of years by a powerful religion is too much for you to handle?

Hey, we understand really! Just as @Erfisflat said, I too used to be into this Star Wars, Star Trek and Superman having come from the planet Krypton stories, and watching endless hours of 3D-cartoons of Cosmos, but isn't it time for us all to grow up?

This may be our last chance to wake up before that same religion, lead by the same religious fanatics, controlled by the same "deities/demons" that in the past wiped out 1/3 of the population of Europe, .. will once again starts burning us at the stake, and chopping our heads off!

I'm the one not living in reality, but you think you're in the truman show with all the agencies controlling what we see, and do. Sure thing.

No, I've never worried about my mental state, nor do I foresee me starting until dementia sets in 20 years or so, speaking of dementia what's that like? pfft

It is time for you to grow up. Santa and the other sky fairies aren't real...

Yes because atheists were the ones who burnt heretics at the stake for witchcraft. Twist it... twist it real good ROFL 

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

" Yes I'm going to believe they landed a rover on a PLANET called mars"

Wait, atheists don't have a belief system do they?

Oh look a strawman fallacy. I can believe something without having a belief system... try again.

You believe the earth is a ball without witness, you believe it to be spinning, without witness, you believe a magical nothing explosion made everything without witness...i could go on.

You believe the earth is flat without witness, you believe it not to be spinning without witness, you believe a magical creature made everything without witness... i could go on, but you don't understand that witnesses (anecdotal) isn't good proof of anything.

 

I have witness all measurable water lacking any curve. And witness anecdotal is proof of a lack of belief, which was my point. But of course you don't understand that. By the way it's not aneqdotal when hundreds of other unbiased citizens verify it.

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

" Yes I'm going to believe they landed a rover on a PLANET called mars"

Wait, atheists don't have a belief system do they?

Oh look a strawman fallacy. I can believe something without having a belief system... try again.

You believe the earth is a ball without witness, you believe it to be spinning, without witness, you believe a magical nothing explosion made everything without witness...i could go on.

You believe the earth is flat without witness, you believe it not to be spinning without witness, you believe a magical creature made everything without witness... i could go on, but you don't understand that witnesses (anecdotal) isn't good proof of anything.

 

I have witness all measurable water lacking any curve. And witness anecdotal is proof of a lack of belief, which was my point. But of course you don't understand that. By the way it's not aneqdotal when hundreds of other unbiased citizens verify it.

Actually you sent me this link showing that water is curve with the boat being eaten from the bottom up as it travels away from the observer. The video spent a lot of time talking about mirrors refraction and other crap, but as you can see from difference between picture 1 and 2 water is curved. However you don't understand that it.






Also swapping from anecdotal to bandwagon fallacy doesn't help you case...

Erfisflat said:

Fredsnephew said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

" Yes I'm going to believe they landed a rover on a PLANET called mars"

Wait, atheists don't have a belief system do they?

Oh look a strawman fallacy. I can believe something without having a belief system... try again.

You believe the earth is a ball without witness, you believe it to be spinning, without witness, you believe a magical nothing explosion made everything without witness...i could go on.

We believe the Earth is a ball because we've witnessed images taken form space.
We believe the Earth is spinning because we witness the altering positions of celestial bodies over 24 hour and yearly cycles.
You supposedly disbelieve, because of some crazy paranoid theory, that government and government bodies are conspiring against you. Without witness.

As for what made everything, no one knows. Because there were no witnesses to this event.

Do you believe this because you are witness to an image? Probably, that's how logical globetards are.



You witness the altering positions of celestial bodies because common sense tells me that they are moving. 

I disbelieve images because,  like those of unicorns and leprechauns, they go against the common senses. I disbelieve images because I have witnessed and measured several bodies of water, and have never found any curve. 

You've observed a bit of water.
Your arguments get weaker and weaker.
The flat Earth theory is crumbling.

Here's another simple question for you.
How come if your flying at an altitude 30.000ft. (Something I've personally witnessed on many occasions)
Why do you not bump into the Sun.

Try and give me a straight answer.

Did you know: 

From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles

Coveny said:

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

@Coveny but you refuse to believe your senses and reality.

No you are the one who refuses to believe reality. Instead you prefer to live in fantasies were the answer to everything is "god did it", scare of the unknown you simply can't handle reality.

@Coveny - No you are the one who refuses to believe reality.

Now that was funny, since the entire Globe Earth, the Moon landing in a studio, Mars landing somewhere in Greenland, Satellite balloons, planets, redshit-gasses left over from an imaginary BB that a Jesuit Priest hallucinated while praying his Rosary and whipping himself senseless, .. all this is science fiction stories from the Supernatural realm, divined by demonic beings to human mediums who took years of studying these deities, and have gotten even their doctorates in "Divinity" so they could better divine for these deities which they program into our heads in church from the pulpit. Also we got this from reading comic books as teens, and watching Children's Programming on TV, .. and some other very religious folk at 666CERN contacting deities like Shiva and passing this information down to us in the form of science!

I mean come on Coveny, we are seriously beginning to worry about your mental state? Maybe all this New information on how we been lied to for hundreds of years by a powerful religion is too much for you to handle?

Hey, we understand really! Just as @Erfisflat said, I too used to be into this Star Wars, Star Trek and Superman having come from the planet Krypton stories, and watching endless hours of 3D-cartoons of Cosmos, but isn't it time for us all to grow up?

This may be our last chance to wake up before that same religion, lead by the same religious fanatics, controlled by the same "deities/demons" that in the past wiped out 1/3 of the population of Europe, .. will once again starts burning us at the stake, and chopping our heads off!

@Coveny - I'm the one not living in reality, but you think you're in the Truman show with all the agencies controlling what we see, and do. Sure thing.

I agree, yes the Truman Show, and other movies like "the Simpson's" are mocking us, laughing in our faces if you will, showing just how gullible we are, .. until we start seeking the Creator since it is now obvious the World was created, like the Flat Earthers are doing, by seeking evidence with substance to build our faith on, not the Religious indoctrinated blind-faith  you are stuck in.

Here is something interesting, shows just how we can veer off from reality with constant heavy indoctrination over the years:



I thought time 3:18  a good one.

Coveny - No, I've never worried about my mental state, nor do I foresee me starting until dementia sets in 20 years or so, speaking of dementia what's that like? pfft

Thank God, and I pray it will never set in, even after 20 years.
Religious Indoctrination is not dementia, it causes "Spiritual/mental blindness", which is 'similar' to dementia. Like when @Erfisflat shocked me with his evidence after evidence of our Flat-Earth, .. for days, even weeks I was lost as to where I was?

So like the YouTube video I shown you above called: "What is your mental state", (time 4:00 on) some of us I guess  can never return to reality no matter what 'evidence' is presented to us!? Funny how they call it "an adult mind" if you don't see the error in observing the world around you! Like the Flat Earth, .. right?

Coveny - It is time for you to grow up. Santa and the other sky fairies aren't real...

Oh man, .. again, what do you mean by "real"?

Look, .. a guy dressed up as Santa is real, it is a "guy dressed up as Santa"! Next Christmas, when he is sitting there scarring children that are forced by the parents to take pictures with him, just go up to him and pinch him real hard, and you will see that he is real.
Is the clothing he is wearing of Santa, or is it of Batman? Yes, even a child will say: "Look mommy it's Santa".
Is the fake beard, sleigh, boots, the Ho.. Ho, .. Ho! he is yelling of Santa? Yes.
You see, Santa and your other sky fairies are "real", .. don't you get it?

What we Flat Earthers are saying, is that your Globe-Earth is NOT the world you live on, .. you, along with billions of indoctrinated humans live in a science fiction universe, on a globe spinning through some vacuum of space, where you have all these planets, and aliens, and, .. well you know the rest, .. that is the difference. You "believe" you live on a Globe, and this is why it is a religion.

Coveny - Yes because atheists were the ones who burnt heretics at the stake for witchcraft. Twist it... twist it real good ROFL

Theist/atheist are two sides of the same coin: 'Religion'.

Tell me, where were the "atheists" when the "theists" were burning people at the stake for witchcraft, or for not accepting the "Trinity Doctrine", huh, .. Where? You think they hid in their homes and in caves? NO, .. they were right there, most likely cheering it all on, approving it, .. I don't know, but I do know they didn't leave town!?

If a woman sees here husband molesting, abusing their own children and doesn't do something about it, is she not a partaker of the abuse? Is she not guilty of it too?

This is why I say: "Get Out of Religion People, .. get Out of Her!" and take back science to mean science again, so you can find God your Creator!

SilverishGoldNova said:

Did you know: 

From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles

Great find man!

why the hell were you 2 fighting about star trek

that makes no sense

Erfisflat said:

@Fredsnephew
I've observed enough water for there to be a curve mathematically. Contrary to the popular globetards argument "earth is too big" it's still supposedly a ball, and all standing water must have a degree of convexity. Where there should be curve, there isnt.

"Why do you not bump into the Sun."

Who said the sun is 30,000 feet? 
Your arguments get weaker and weaker.
The globe Earth theory is crumbling.

I certainly never suggested that the sun was at an altitude of 30000ft. I was simply trying to stimulate a response.
That is to say, maybe you would dare to propose a definitive altitude.
Nonetheless, I'm surprised that such an eminent mathematician as yourself, does seem to have no idea whatsoever where the sun might be in a flat earth system.
If you are capable of accurately measuring large expanses of open water, then you can surely measure with similar accuracy, the altitude of the sun.

As ever, simple questions remain unanswered.
1. Why does it go dark at night?
2. Why is there seasonal variation in day length at the poles?
3. Why does the Sun appear to rise above the eastern horizon in the morning and set below the western horizon   in the evening?

None of these events would be possible in a flat earth system.

@Erfisflat ; I don't know if you have seen this yet, but here is the extent that NASA science will go to, to protect their $10 Billion a month income, by making sure no young college mind will even think about investigating the Flat Earth.

The information is all correct, but just watch the presentation, and the way these two are dressed, how they present themselves; the guy looks like a cave man (most likely a fake beard), and this on the streets of Harvard, yelling in the ears of passing by students who wouldn't be caught dead speaking to this guy.




did you notice the shill in the black Rouge One Rebels shirt at time 28:45 !?

Now imagine we exchange those two with some clean cut, Harvard Graduates, intelligently and politely bringing up some interesting points to the passers by, quoting Eric Dubay's 200 reasons the Earth is Flat?  .. how long do you think before the cops would come, destroy their setup and ask them to leave?

Nauseating to see just how low the deceiving thieves will stoop to, isn't it?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArgumentumAdLapidem

@evidence ;
I wonder how many minds have been secretly blown here in the past few months. Only a few have had the guts to admit it, but quite a few have gone silent from the site.

Erfisflat said:

@Fredsnephew

"Certainly atmospheric conditions can have an impact on light intensity, at any time of the day.
But this falls short of explaining why it goes dark at night."

I fail to understand why you are making this statement. If you took a 75 watt light bulb to a football field you wouldnt be able to light up the whole field. This is not exactly to scale of corse, but you get the idea. Add to that hundreds or thousands (depending on the altitude of the sun) of miles of atmosphere (clpuds, dust, smog, water, heat, fog, etc.), and you have a means of blocking light. This is one of the reasons we can't see clear across the Atlantic Ocean. 


The mountains in the distance are not hidden by curvature, they are just hidden by an accumulation of particles of matter in the air. This indubitably causes it to go dark at night.

On a similar matter, if you're talking about sunsets, that is a combination of refraction and perspective, I can explain that again if I need to, but both subjects have been covered extensively. They were likely covered in the first few pages, but if you can't find them, I'll go over them again.

"Variable atmospheric conditions also fail to explain seasonal changes in day length, especially in polar regions "



This is due to a different circuit of the sun around the pole. In our summer, the sun is closer to the center, causing the arctic midnight sun, where the sun doesn't go down in the northern polar region. It's included in the Gleason' s map. 

 



The evidence for this is the sun analemma.


Which contradicts the globe model, but fits perfectly in FET.

How can the Sun go down in a flat Earth system?
Sounds like a contradiction in terms.
If the Sun did go down on a flat Earth, surely the whole Earth would go dark all a once.
Which as we all know, never happens.
Kids stuff really.

Nice colourful pictures by the way.

Erfisflat said:

@Fredsnephew
"How can the Sun go down in a flat Earth system?"

If you had read any of the posts, you'd know. You aren't serious, and you don't care. Your questions have been answered, and instead of conceding or addressing those, you nonchalantly dismiss the evidence without reason to save face.

@Erfisflat It's amazing after all the info you have beautifully presented here on this O.P., that you explained over and over again, and they still can't get past the first question they asked?
Was I this bad in the beginning too? Do you remember?

Or maybe he is asking how the sun can literally go down, as if that ever happened on their Heliocentric model? You think?