See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://youtu.be/-Ax_YpQsy88
Published: Dec 29, 2019
Author: Eric Dubay
Post Date: 2019-12-29 19:57:38 by wudidiz
Keywords: None
Views: 27610
Comments: 351
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-13) not displayed.
.
.
.
#14. To: Cynicom, noone222 (#7)
Metoreolgy explains the answer. There is primarily the matter of inertia. An object will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force. Everything on earth stays at the same relative motion unless acted upon by an external force, including gravity which pulls everything towards the center of the planet. It's why and how satellites stay in orbit, they're falling towards earth at the same rate they travel horizontally. As far as the air, it travels at the same rate as the rest of the planet. Now if the earth were to STOP rotating all of a sudden, everything would go flying at about 1000 mph. You see, the only time motion is noticeable is when there is acceleration or deceleration, such as in a car. A person in a car traveling smoothly at 70 mph will be able to sit in their seat comfortably, whereas if that car hits a tree he'll definitely go flying out the windshield due to the instant deceleration. This is a religion for these people. They don't need proof of anything. LOL, why does the bowl start spinning when I run the electric mixer to make a cake? I'm not touching the bowl. “I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits.” - William S Burroughs
Because your batter is spinning inside the bowl, and due to friction the bowl starts to spin in the same direction. It's the force of the batter spinning and the friction between the batter and the bowl. Now if you don't turn the motor on, it won't spin, right? But the batter is a liquid, there is no friction. :)
“I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits.” - William S Burroughs
I think my favorite argument against flat earth is the time it takes to fly form Chile to New Zealand. If the earth is flat, these 2 places are on the opposite side of the flat earth disk which would be an enormous distance, and the conventional airline flight time of about 13 hours would mean the plane has to fly at about Mach 2. Of course commercial airliners are all subsonic. With this counter argument, there's no blaming NASA for lying or scrutinizing pictures that may have been CGI enhanced. Flight info is verifiable on the net and average people fly that route daily. There is no flat earth explanation for it.
Ha! guess I fooled you :) I haven't studied it enough. Actually, hardly at all. Besides, I really have a pea brain. I am leaning toward it though, simply because they have lied about everything else. When I've had a chance to study it more, I'll get back to you. Or maybe not. Looks like we're headed to war. Who knows. I may not get out alive. "...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
If the batter is thicker than water there is friction. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
And if I cannot get away from these incompetent buffoons who call themselves doctors I will definitely not get out alive. :-/ "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
hmmm? what's going on?
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
If the batter is thicker than water there is friction. ;) Water creates friction too. Ever been swimming? During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. +1000 Nice post. Actually, what's advance here is more like "evidences." ...All I've considered are, to various degrees, easily dismissed. Not only are NONE are "easily dismissed," but to various degrees IMPOSSIBLE to dismiss. Period. (Please let go of your single objection regarding the flight from Chile to NZ and focus instead on some OTHER points/objections.) Yes, we've indeed belabored this subject ad nauseum, but with "200 Proofs" to consider debunking, I seriously doubt you or most folks are going to watch and consider all 200 proofs of this vid for one and a half hours (if you do, chances are you will seriously question this realm.) And then there are the countless YT vids to seriously consider that fully expose and destroy the lies while illuminating the truth. Many are extremely convincing. Either one is compelled to learn the truth on the matter or finds it irrelevant or "settled science" by the very same "Science Communitah," Academia, and Political Institutions that blatantly lie about Gender, Climate Change, Vaccines, Chemtrails, Illuminati/Luciferians/Satanists, Tesla, Natural Healing, NASA hoaxing, Politics, "Education," etc, etc. FWIW... The same "Modern" astronomy, cosmology, archaeology, and the "laws of sciences" which we've all been taught/indoctrinated in public schools as "gospel-science" have actually been nothing but...HYPOTHESES, which have been PURPOSELY WRONG, SLOPPY, and SHAM. Ping, I've recently read 5 books on the subject from contemporaries of Darwin and Einstein published between 1865-1922; basically contemporaries of all those who steamrolled their respective hypotheses of "Gravity" (Newton), Evolution (Darwin), Heliocentrism (Copernicus), Relativity (Einstein), Nebularism, aka "Sphere-ism" (Kant). Guess what? These foundations of "modern science" wind up as unproveable theoretical BS back then; And still unprovable theory NOW. That means "they've"knowingly been deceiving the world with layers of lies. For those like you who may eschew scriptural support on the subject of "Flat" or Plane Earthly realm, one particular book addresses all of the above, based only examining actual observable science: 'Kings Dethroned' Author: Gerrard Hickson https://www.amazon.com/Kings-Dethroned-History-Evolution-Astronomy/dp/1407691384 Einstein's "Relativism" is especially interesting in that his theory (yes, even HE admitted it could NOT be proven) was cooked up specifically to disprove the Michelson-Morley experiment which proved the earth is NOT SPINNING (look it up.) So...If the earth is not actually spinning, it destroys all the other theories on sphere-earth, geocentricism, gravity, a "Light Years" universe etal. Again -- THE definitive RECOMMENDED BOOK ON THIS ENTIRE SUBJECT: 'Kings Dethroned' Author: Gerrard Hickson Other highly recommended books (written and published back when knowledge wasn't censored or controlled by the PTB). To Believers: These book WILL ALSO consider Biblical/Divine authority and reference as to the shape and description of our Eealm and Firmament: Zetetic Astronomy -- Earth is Not a Globe Samuel Birley Rowbotham Terra Firma: the Earth Not a Planet, Proved from Scripture, Reason, and Fact David Wardlaw Scott The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe Edward Hendrie I found it amazing that Science and scientists were already so well in tune and familiar with and to natural earthly "laws" and our realm. Moreover -- unbeknownst to us today -- at the time (1880-1920) a very large battle waged over ALL these theories and whether or not they should be considered true and "Science." (The PTB at the time won that battle, obviously.) Einstein's sham 'Theory of Relativity' save the day for Fake Science. ***FINAL NOTE The 'Flat Earth Society' is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION, so dismiss it fully. Make absolutely no sense. WHY would NASA need CGI help when they've supposedly traveled back and forth to the moon FIVE times AND allegedly sent up a bazillion "satellites" with which they could/should/would ave taken a gazillion CLEAR, PRECISE PHOTOS? Moreover, why couldn't the alleged "Hubbell" telescope have turned toward Earth AND the Moon and take crystal clean photos of both from every angle possible?? That's fine, as long as it's understood that evidence is not proof. Finding a footprint of a unique shoe belonging to someone is evidence the person was there, but not proof. I'll take the first one in the video: The horizon always appears flat regardless of altitude. This is a subjective, non-quantifiable assertion. Counter arguments say curvature IS observable at airline altitude provided weather conditions allow sufficient view. Maybe it is not easy to dismiss but if so, it's because of the subjective nature of the "proof", which in this case I wouldn't even call evidence. It's an argument only, and easily dismissed as a flat earth evidence because it is a subjective claim. When a video titled "200 proofs" starts off with an argument that is of such low grade subjectiveness, it really lowers one's expectations as to the other 199, and sitting through them tries one's patience. Any other of the 200 that are similarly subjective can be easily dismissed for the same reason, but if you want, pick out 2 or 3 you think are the most compelling and I'll address them. Well, I like that one in part because it's not in the least subjective. It's completely 100% quantifiable and doesn't rely on anything NASA says or does or has done. It does not rely on any pictures, videos that may have been edited or allegedly edited, or disputed observations or witnesses that may or may not be telling the truth. There are no models of the sun and moon moving around in circles over a flat earth to maybe explain it. The flat earth argument needs to counter this by saying the flights are either fake, airlines are capable of > 2x the speed of sound, or some space worm hole exists that air traffic flies through en route. I see it as "checkmate" evidence against flat earth. Sorry, but I don't have time or patience to acquire & read whole books on an idea that doesn't even get to first base as there are no shortage of ideas that fail to do that. Let me see it get to first or second base.
Here on earth, two pillars of Verazano bridge are perpendicular. Two pillars are inch and half further apart at top than base's. Curvature of earth measured.
One can clearly see the curvature of the Earth looking out across Lake Michigan from the Sears Tower (or whatever it's called these days). I know, I have done it.
“I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits.” - William S Burroughs
I trust the calculations, but it doesn't work well as a counter to flat earth. Reason: Have you verified this difference? Do you know anyone who has? Can those claims be trusted? Maybe the difference is due to construction anomalies and not earth curvature? E.g. are these pillars the same width at the bottom as they are at the top? Are they perfectly vertical? Lots of room for counter arguments.
I would trust they had good Engineers who knew what they were doing. Remember too that they told Christopher Columbus if he sailed west he would fall off the end of the Earth. No such thing happened. But when they sited land and stepped foot on it, they called it San Salvadore. We know exactly where that island is in the Caribbean today. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
I trust Ping is funning us. Thousands of years ago, the builders of the Great Pyramids were well aware of earth curvature. Something the engineers that built the Verazano bridge drew on their ORIGINAL plans. The inch or two was present AT CONCEPT.
Not at all. If a flat earther claimed the columns of this bridge were, in fact, parallel thus proving the earth is flat, all the points I raised could/would be claimed to rebut the claim. Even if the columns were perfectly parallel, none of us round-earthers would accept it as proof the earth is flat, so I would expect flat earthers to similarly discount claims about these columns NOT being parallel as evidence the earth is round. I've no doubt earth curvature was taken into account by the bridge designers when drawing up the plans. Longer bridges in the world have done the same. But it doesn't mean a 1.5 inch margin of error for construction of a bridge that size would be outside acceptable tolerances. I don't know. For all we know, considering the foundation, the columns could be leaning slightly one way or the other by that tiny amount. If you want to give a flat-earther something they have a hard time challenging, you have to do better than presenting this bridge as evidence.
Ping... The inch and a half was on the drawing boards BEFORE THE BRIDGE WAS BUILT. The ancients knew it before they laid the foundations for their pyramids.Without looking how did they "level" for the foundation over such an expanse?
Well said. You would have to do much better than that, because anyone suffering from the flat-earthism psychosis is unlikely to be susceptible to logic, facts, and reason.
Cyni... I believe you. But if you want to debate and argue effectively, you have to present points that won't be subject to challenge by the person you're debating. If a flat-earther says "prove it" in response to the above, will you be able to? No. Prove it. To find out what's level over a large distance, they could have easily just dug a long trench and filled it with water. Water not flowing will reveal the exact same altitude on both ends. But the point is not that you're right. The point is being able to **defend** being right. Presenting points you cannot defend and substantiate is worthless in a debate, even if the points are true.
Power lines over Lake Pontchartrain elegantly demonstrate the curvature of Earth “I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits.” - William S Burroughs
Prove what?
Ancients perhaps were more observant and able to think than some. Very young, stood on high cliff on a small island, an adjacent island was visible. Down on the beach, the other island was gone. Two things were possible, the other island had sunk in the ocean, OR the earth WAS ROUND. Back on the cliff, damned island was back.
The ancients solved problems like how to move massive rocks of dozens of tons using only manual labor -- an art pretty much lost just due to inventions making the old ways obsolete. But sometimes more credit is given to them than is due. In South America, there's an ancient stone ruin, and it marks the exact equator. But that doesn't mean they understood the earth was round. Instead, they likely discovered the coriolis effect when water drains, rotating clockwise or counterclockwise depending on which side of the equator it was on, and after experimenting some found the equator (which can be done within a few inches or a foot, amazingly enough). So they decided to make a monument to this very special line without understanding what it really was. Possibly all the while believing, for all we know, that the earth was flat.
Remember they told Christopher Columbus if he sailed west he would fall off the end of the Earth. He did it anyway. The island he landed on is called San Salvador. He thought he had sailed to China. The New World turned out to be much more than any of them expected. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Thanks for having the Ignore Thread button here.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Columbus sailed with his uncles Templar maps. He always knew he would land somewhere the fear of falling off the edge and/or proving the earth round is a wives tale for kids,.. Now expanding earth theory. Nobody look into that. I FORBID YOU. Expanding earth theory is hogwash bullshit. Fucking flat earth theory has more merit than expanding earth. Only stars expand not planets, never planets. DO NOT LOOK THIS UP I FORBID IT. ______________________________________ Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
From what I've looked up the simple answer seems to be water. Simple lock and dams we don't want to credit the old world with. It ain't such an crazy and hard to understand concept but for some reason academia doesn't want to acknowledge it.... maybe they feel that their is more money in ALIENS ALIENS EVERYWHERE or who knows it's a mystery. Mystery everywhere... pls give be more moneies.
______________________________________ Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
This from Aristotle a few years ago... """In his book On the Heavens, he wrote: "Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the Earth is circular, but also that it is a circle of no great size. For quite a small change of position to south or north causes a manifest alteration of the horizon." In other words, you see different sets of stars in the night sky depending on where you are. The sky over the northern hemisphere is not the same as the sky over the southern hemisphere. If the Earth was flat, then at any given time we would all see the same stars, and we don't.""" Very young I saw islands appear and disappear with altitude. I was as smart as Aristotle. Well close anyway.
There is no flat earth explanation for why a compass works, why the stars are different in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, why revolve around the celestial poles, why they people can't see the Eiffel tower and the Himalayas from a mountain top using a telescope, why the motions of the planets are predictable, etc... You'd have to erase any intelligence, logic, or rational thought a person has for them to believe in a flat earth. It's as if they are scared of the vastness of the universe and need to shrink it down to something they can accept. What do you think is the purpose of explorers and scientists throughout history of plotting to trick you, Liberator, into thinking the earth is a sphere where in reality we're all riding on the back of a huge turtle?
If you can't understand the most fundamental concepts of motion, you have no business even mentioning Einstein. A compass could potentially still work. While it's not possible to have only a north pole without a south pole, the south pole could be centered well below a flat earth disk. I hesitate to mention that as I don't want the mention to be construed as supporting flat earthism, but I do like to let facts speak for themselves. I think they may say the stars are much closer to the earth. Maybe a couple hundred miles up. That would give a different north vs south hemisphere view. Though the next problem is that the people in the S hemisphere would see stars whizzing through the sky at, well, astronomical speeds. I guess a time lapse video of the stars moving in a circular manner over the "fake" south pole would/should throw a monkey wrench into the theory. For a number of these things flat earthers have various theories concocted. Challenging those theories just takes you on a journey down the rabbit hole. Theories can be modified to be compatible with problematic observations. My theory is that the human mind has a greatly underestimated ability to believe things that are not true. Massively underestimated. It's the reason why some Muslims blow themselves up, why people hate Trump so much, why countries are largely one specific religion over vast periods of time, and so on. It's a basis for deception something we are all subject to and I don't consider anyone immune, including myself.
That is why I referenced 200 'Proofs' as "Evidences" instead. ;-) I'll take the first one in the video: The horizon always appears flat regardless of altitude. This is a subjective, non-quantifiable assertion. Counter arguments say curvature IS observable at airline altitude provided weather conditions allow sufficient view. I have been there, done that...while living near the ocean most of my life... ARE perceptions "quantitative"?? Probably. Many observations or perceptions wind up as "subjective." However, with the objective preponderance of evidence, the weight of "proof" becomes more decisive. And that is exactly what Eric Dubay accomplishes here (add the weight of others, and the truth of our realm become even more obvious.) All that said, yes, true. There are "Counter-arguments" that will indeed claim curvature. Might this be a matter of the vast power of suggestion to any degree? The ocean has always looked level to me, tapering into a very slight curve at either end of both directions at the far left and far right of the horizon. In retrospect, it was THAT weak supposed observation and power of suggestion that helped convince myself that maybe the earth was "round." I was never fully convinced. When a video titled "200 proofs" starts off with an argument that is of such low grade subjectiveness, it really lowers one's expectations as to the other 199, and sitting through them tries one's patience. Really? One "proof" into this vid and you've already concluded the following 199 "proofs" are weak? That's a mistake. He crushes it. Dubay dismantles one "scientific" myth/assumption after another. Right till the very end. He even explains the probable identity & cites motivation in the last 10 minutes. Dubay's "200 Proofs" reinforce those legit doubts (IF you or anyone else actually and patiently watches. If so, you'll discover his point-by-point case of deception vs truths are absolutely and devastatingly effective.) Water ALWAYS remains level is does not curve. PROVEN. 70% of this realm is water, ergo, what are we to conclude? I'm not going to try and convince you or anyone else of something you just don't care about on a point by point basis -- Dubay covers the subject well. Either one concedes and realizes this world is about deception or they don't; There are indeed truths the world's PTB/Elites don't and never want us to know or discover. (And YES, they DO control "knowledge.") FWIW I have flown and watched countless hours of actual flights and views. Flat. A flat horizon ALWAYS rises to the eye. If there is any perceived "curve," it seems always to be a slight one at the far edges of the respective 180 degrees. Any other of the 200 that are similarly subjective can be easily dismissed for the same reason, but if you want, pick out 2 or 3 you think are the most compelling and I'll address them. Thanks for trying to be fair & open-minded to even that degree. Respect. But honestly and objectively? At least 150 of Dubay's "Proofs" are "compelling". Seriously. Investigating this subject or any truth isn't for everyone. Many actually do not want to know THE truth. (The question or rather answer with respect to our earthly realm is the Mother of ALL of the PTB Lies. That is why such a "silly(!!)" "Flat Earth" subject is publicly targeted as "dangerous" and heavily censored by G00gle/YouTube head, Susan Wojcicki -- as well as most Scientism cults. Yes, "Scientism" is a religion.) Sorry, but I don't have time or patience to acquire & read whole books on an idea that doesn't even get to first base as there are no shortage of ideas that fail to do that. I specifically mentioned those books precisely because its authors debunk and disprove the very "scientific" foundations for Globe Earth belief in the first place. Copernicus (Heliocentrism), Newton (Gravity), Einstein (Relativity) ALL admitted their respective theories were merely "possible"; NOT "proven.") Their hypotheses, wishful thinking and assumptions didn't stop the "Science" institutions (controlled by Masons/Talmudics/Luciferians/Illuminati) from claiming it so. With respect to NASA, it is an obvious massive and epic theatrical/technical deception & fail. Which is why rejection of the "Moon Landings" are another subject considered "dangerous" by G00gle, YT, the Trekkies, the de Grasse-Tysons, and MSM. It destroys their sci-fi fantasies. Place a straight piece of paper over the horizon... Is it absolutely straight? (btw, does this photo of these lines taken via telescopic lens seem to be dramatically distorting this perspective?) IF you're interested, In '200 Proofs', 1:50 in, Dubay explains and addressed how curvature is rarely if ever considered by rail & canal engineers. With respect to bridges, the curvature formula (8" sq per mile) is actually taken into account, but it is by far the exception, dismissed totally by the vast majority of engineers. Worth while questions. Calculations that consider the supposed curvature via formula is an allowance rarely taken into account by engineers. Curvature may have been assumed regarding the Verazano-Narrows bridge...but wasn't necessary. The water below it is LEVEL.
Comments (54 - 351) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe rotation speed at the poles is zero but there is always a wind factor.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination 
#15. To: Pinguinite (#3)
They are not "proofs". They are arguments, and all I've considered are, to various degrees, easily dismissed.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#16. To: FormerLurker (#14)
There is primarily the matter of inertia. An object will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force. Everything on earth stays at the same relative motion unless acted upon by an external force, including gravity which pulls everything towards the center of the planet.
#17. To: Dakmar (#16)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#18. To: FormerLurker (#17)
#19. To: FormerLurker (#15)
#20. To: FormerLurker (#11)
#21. To: Dakmar (#18)
But the batter is a liquid, there is no friction. :)
#22. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#20)
I may not get out alive.
#23. To: BTP Holdings (#22)
#24. To: BTP Holdings (#21)
But the batter is a liquid, there is no friction. :)
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#25. To: wudidiz (#0)
#26. To: Pinguinite, wudidiz, ALL (#3)
(Edited)
They are not "proofs". They are arguments, and all I've considered are, to various degrees, easily dismissed.
It is devastatingly effective and convincing.
#27. To: Pinguinite (#19)
...there's no blaming NASA for lying or scrutinizing pictures that may have been CGI enhanced.
#28. To: Liberator (#26)
Actually, what's advance here is more like "evidences."
Not only are NONE are "easily dismissed," but to various degrees IMPOSSIBLE to dismiss. Period. (Please let go of your single objection regarding the flight from Chile to NZ and focus instead on some OTHER points/objections.)
(Please let go of your single objection regarding the flight from Chile to NZ and focus instead on some OTHER points/objections.)
#29. To: Pinguinite (#28)
#30. To: Pinguinite (#28)
#31. To: Cynicom (#29)
Here on earth, two pillars of Verazano bridge are perpendicular.
Two pillars are inch and half further apart at top than base's.
Curvature of earth measured.
#32. To: Pinguinite (#31)
Maybe the difference is due to construction anomalies and not earth curvature? E.g. are these pillars the same width at the bottom as they are at the top? Are they perfectly vertical?
#33. To: BTP Holdings, Pingunite, All (#32)
I trust the calculations, but it doesn't work well as a counter to flat earth. Reason: Have you verified this difference? Do you know anyone who has? Can those claims be trusted? Maybe the difference is due to construction anomalies and not earth curvature? E.g. are these pillars the same width at the bottom as they are at the top? Are they perfectly vertical? Lots of room for counter arguments.
#34. To: Cynicom (#33)
I trust Ping is funning us.
#35. To: Pinguinite, BTP holdings (#34)
#36. To: Pinguinite (#34)
If you want to give a flat-earther something they have a hard time challenging, you have to do better than presenting this bridge as evidence.
#37. To: Cynicom (#35)
The inch and a half was on the drawing boards BEFORE THE BRIDGE WAS BUILT.
The ancients knew it before they laid the foundations for their pyramids.
Without looking how did they "level" for the foundation over such an expanse?
#38. To: Pinguinite, Cynicom. StraitGate, BTP Holdings, Liberator, Bill D Berger, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, FormerLurker, noone222, Lod, wudidiz (#37)
#39. To: Pinguinite (#37)
#40. To: Dakmar (#38)
#41. To: Cynicom (#40)
Ancients perhaps were more observant and able to think than some.
#42. To: StraitGate (#36)
(Edited)
flat-earthism
#43. To: Pinguinite (#41)
#44. To: BTP Holdings (#42)
(Edited)
#45. To: Pinguinite (#41)
#46. To: BTP Holdings, Lod, Ancients (#42)
#47. To: Pinguinite (#19)
(Edited)
I think my favorite argument against flat earth is the time it takes to fly form Chile to New Zealand.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#48. To: Liberator (#27)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#49. To: Liberator (#26)
Einstein's "Relativism" is especially interesting in that his theory (yes, even HE admitted it could NOT be proven) was cooked up specifically to disprove the Michelson-Morley experiment which proved the earth is NOT SPINNING (look it up.)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#50. To: FormerLurker (#47)
There is no flat earth explanation for why a compass works,
why the stars are different in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, why they revolve around the celestial poles,
why they people can't see the Eiffel tower and the Himalayas from a mountain top using a telescope, why the motions of the planets are predictable, etc...
You'd have to erase any intelligence, logic, or rational thought a person has for them to believe in a flat earth.
#51. To: Pinguinite, 4 (#28)
That's fine, as long as it's understood that evidence is not proof. Finding a footprint of a unique shoe belonging to someone is evidence the person was there, but not proof.
#52. To: Dakmar, 4 (#38)
#53. To: Pinguinite, Cynicom (#31)
I trust the calculations, but it doesn't work well as a counter to flat earth. Reason: Have you verified this difference? Do you know anyone who has? Can those claims be trusted? Maybe the difference is due to construction anomalies and not earth curvature?
.
.
.