AngularSaxophone
Banned
Last edited:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
100% Flat Earth Proof
- Thread starter Big-G
- Start date
louis89
Member
We're not moving around the sun at a 'fast' speed in astronomical terms. When you look up things like the speed of the Earth's rotation or its speed around the sun and get numbers that sound crazily huge and fast, you have to remember that they're only crazily huge and fast in comparison to the kind of speeds humans travel at on our planet. Think about how slowly the hour hand on a clock moves. It spins completely once every 12 hours, and you can barely see it moving. Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours - i.e. it's going twice as slowly as the hour hand on a clock, relative to its size. If you were to zoom out of the solar system and look at the Earth spinning, it wouldn't look like it was spinning at all. Watch for an entire hour and it will only have shifted about 4% from where it started.
As for the Earth going round the sun - that happens fully once a YEAR. We've zoomed out of the solar system. Sit there watching Earth all day every day for an entire month, and it will only have moved the equivalent of going from 12 to 1 on a clock.
The earth is VERY SLOW on an astronomical scale. That's why you can't see spirals of stars in time lapse photos. The stars do move around in the 'stereographical' way you're imagining; it just happens over an entire year. The constellations you can see in the sky change over the year. The only thing you can see in one night is the streaks that photos of have been posted here, because that dimension of movement happens over 24 hours and through a dark night lasting 10 hours or so, you can see a decent amount of that movement.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
This doesn't make sense to me. So it spins at 1000mph right? Use your imagination here with me for a moment. As large as earth is, let's imagine you had a room with a door in it. And when you opened that door, you'd be looking at nothing but the earth from the closest possible view. I mean face to face with it looking at whatever you could see through the relatively tiny doorway moving by you at 1000mph. Yeah it's gonna take 24 hours for the point that you saw when you opened the door to come back around to you but what you'd be seeing would be moving so fast that I don't see how it could resemble anything but a blur. You see where I'm at now?
it doesn't spin, does it.
Last edited:
louis89
Member
If we ignore all the motion of the solar system and galaxy etc. and just consider a completely stationary room, and the Earth 1 metre in front of it, and you're standing in the room looking through the door, yes, what you'd be seeing would be moving ridiculously fast to you and would just be a blur. Correct.
But if the room was thousands of miles away from the Earth and you could see the whole Earth from it, it would be moving apparently really slowly. It's all about how close you are to it. Planes fly at about 600MPH, which sounds fast, but look at a plane in the sky from the ground and it looks like it's moving pretty slowly. That 600MPH, a crazy speed if you're right next to the plane, is reduced to a crawl from a distance. And from a plane, the ground looks like it's moving slowly too. Now imagine how much the 67000MPH the earth is going round the sun is reduced when the distance between the two things, i.e. the earth and the stars, is millions and millions of miles. The 67000MPH we're going round the sun is nothing on that scale - which is why stars don't look like they're moving. If you could somehow record the night sky over an entire year, the star trails would be the more crazy patterns you're imagining, because you'd have the 24 hour streaks as the earth spins, plus the 365 day general lateral movement as the earth goes round the sun. Star movement comes from both of those things, you just have to remember that one (earth spinning) happens 365 times in the time it takes the other to happen once (earth going round the sun) - so that has a much greater effect on what we see at night.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Ah. You're with me now but you have to stay here once you open your eyes. If you spun a basketball on your finger, all you'd see is a blur. I highly doubt it's spinning 1000mph but it's still a blur. Whether it's the basketball on your finger in front of your face, you looking at it on your friends finger from across the room, earth a meter from your face or from a large distance away, it's still going to be a blur. It's spinning.
IT DOESNT SPIN, DOES IT 
louis89
Member
Ah. You're with me now but you have to stay here once you open your eyes. If you spun a basketball on your finger, all you'd see is a blur. I highly doubt it's spinning 1000mph but it's still a blur. Whether it's the basketball on your finger in front of your face, you looking at it on your friends finger from across the room, earth a meter from your face or from a large distance away, it's still going to be a blur. It's spinning.
IT DOESNT SPIN, DOES IT
It's spinning at the same speed regardless of where you look at it from, yes. But it looks like it's spinning more slowly from further away, because the basketball's size looks smaller from further away. It looks smaller, and so the distance a point on its surface has to travel each time it spins looks smaller, but still spins round once in the same time. So it looks like it's going slower. That isn't a very good example because a basketball isn't something you can see from large distances away with your naked eye. Go back to my plane example. Plane flies right by you at 600MPH? Crazy fast. Same plane looked at from the ground? Looks slow. For exactly the same reason, you can't see the movement of stars as a result of the earth going round the sun. The earth goes round the sun too slowly for it to make a difference, unless you look at it over months and months. This is why the night sky looks different in summer to what it looks like in winter, but not from night to night. 67000MPH is REALLY slow when we're talking about distances on this scale.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
I get what you're saying but I think planes are a bad example because they really don't go full speed all that often. Especially if it still takes 5 hours for me to get to New York.
louis89
Member
If you get what I'm saying, what part do you disagree with? It doesn't sound like I've convinced you.
The average bacteria is the same size to an average human as the average human is to the earth (you can look this up).
Now imagine that you're in a room, and there's a point on the ground. You walk in a circle around this point, REALLY, REALLY slowly. I'm talking so slowly, that it takes you an entire year to walk around it once.
To you, and any person looking at you, you're going insanely slowly. So slowly it doesn't look like you're moving.
But, to a bacteria on the surface of your skin, you're going insanely fast - because it's so small and would take months to travel what you travel in one step. The bacteria is sitting there thinking if we're going at this crazy fast speed, why aren't the objects I can look up at and see in this room moving around in a circular pattern?
The answer is that you're not going at a crazy fast speed. You're going at a crazy slow speed on a human's scale.
In terms of relative size, we are bacteria, and the earth is a human. 67000MPH sounds like a crazy fast speed to us. But to the earth and the stars, that is ridiculously slow and you can't see stars moving above you in the same way the bacteria can't see the objects in the room moving above it. We are moving far too slowly to see it.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Nah. That's like the clock thing. If I'm in the room with earth flying by my face in the doorway and look back at the clock on the wall, those hands are moving nowhere near as fast as the big sphere outside. Just as if instead of walking around for the bacteria, I spun in place, I'd still be blurry. It's the blur that I can't get past. Once something is in motion, like earth moving that fast, I can't see how you'd ever not see blur unless you were somehow able to track its movement like you would a plane but the plane is moving across the sky. Earth is in one spot. Spinning.
its not
*edit
I'm laying here thinking about how you'd get earth not to blur and the only way you could is to be tiny. Like an atom maybe. In that same room at the doorway if you were ultra small, 1000mph would look slow, not sped up like you said. That's what they did. Space had to look huge so we'd look small. It's like a bad version of honey I shrunk the kids.
Last edited:
louis89
Member
Yes, that is what it would look like. Correct.
What you're missing is that the distance those things are travelling are completely different.
Let's say the hour hand on the clock is going half its normal speed. Now it spins once in 24 hours. Relative to its size, it's spinning the same speed as the earth. 24 hours later, the tip of the hour hand and a point on the earth will be back to where they started from. So why then, as you correctly point out, does the hand look like it's barely moving and the massive earth outside looks like a ridiculous speedy blur?
It's because a point on the surface of the earth has to travel thousands and thousands of miles to get back to where it started. The hour hand only has to travel about 30cm around, on a typical clock. To you, thousands of miles is a huge distance. To you, 30cm is a small distance. But they both take the same amount of time to do it. So what does that mean? It means that the earth must be travelling MUCH, MUCH faster than the hand of the clock. So if you look at them both from 1m away, one looks ridiculously faster than the other.
To a bacteria roughly the length of its body away from the hour hand, the hand is moving at an unimaginably fast speed. But to you, 1m away from it, the hour hand is barely moving.
To you, 1m away from the earth, the earth is moving at an unimaginably fast speed. But to the stars, millions of miles away from it, the earth is barely moving.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
You missed my edit. Reread. I think you have it backwards.
Last edited:
louis89
Member
I really don't understand what you're trying to say in your edit. Why would being smaller make what you see look different? What affects the size things look to you is the distance you are from them, not your own size.
I don't really understand what you mean by "blur" either, but the way to get the earth to look like it's spinning more slowly is to move further away from it. Again, the plane example should make this clear. When you're close to it, it looks fast. When you're far away, it looks slow.
Last edited:
Geki-D
Banned
So you came back?
I like how you've been "answering" questions but yet, after like 3 threads now, just so happened to ignore this yet again:
oh and don't try to backtrack and say that things don't "sink" as they get further because you already conceded that they do in the first thread this came around.
Here's another example of zooming;
According to you, what we should see here is the most distant objects "rising" when it zooms in because you say that the sinking effect is nothing more than an "optical illusion", yet that clearly isn't what's happening, why? Can you show us a video of something over the horizon actually being "lifted" back over it due to zoom?
You always ask a barrage of questions then make claims and just quickly move on to more of your questions. It's about time you explained how stuff works from your flat Earth model and post some proof. I don't know why people keep falling for this, your ideas are the fringe so it's up to you to actually prove something.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
This is what I mean when I say that you don't understand angular velocity and linear velocity. The Earth spins one full revolution every 24 hours. Now, spin the basketball so that it makes one full revolution in 24 hours. That would be the equivalent comparison since the sizes of the earth and the basketball are so different. The metric you use to measure them would involve degrees, since they are both rotating. Not so fast now, is it?Ah. You're with me now but you have to stay here once you open your eyes. If you spun a basketball on your finger, all you'd see is a blur. I highly doubt it's spinning 1000mph but it's still a blur. Whether it's the basketball on your finger in front of your face, you looking at it on your friends finger from across the room, earth a meter from your face or from a large distance away, it's still going to be a blur. It's spinning.
IT DOESNT SPIN, DOES IT
julio_grr
Member
Yes. So will you answer all the other questions or will you dismiss it like always ?
H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
This thread is very handy for nutter detection. I thank all who have taken part for building my list of nutters.
Big-G
Member
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
That's what my closet is for, right?
WhiskeyDiver
Member
Share your list in PM please. I can't go back and read through this entire thread, because it is overflowing with stupid.
Last edited:
ResilientBanana
Member
If the earth is constantly moving up, why have we only seen the same stars in the same spots for over thousands of recorded years? I'm guessing the flat earth response has something to do with the fact that they are constantly moving to.
Also explain this:
Also explain this:
Last edited:
WinterIsComing
Member
The earth is flat.
The earth doesn't spin.
There is no space.
Nothing's ever been to the moon.
Maybe i'm missing something...hmmmmkay
The earth doesn't spin.
There is no space.
Nothing's ever been to the moon.
Maybe i'm missing something...hmmmmkay
Geki-D
Banned
The answer to this is going to be something along the lines of "Because stars are just lights stuck to the glass dome that covers the Earth" or something to that effect.
he's just gonna say"It doesn't look real to me, therefore it's not" feelz above realz, and all that.
Wings 嫩翼翻せ
so it's not nice
AngularSaxophone
Banned
You know what I'm glad you keep trying to irk me
this one actually helped me realize something. The curve from the lens not only distorts the horizon, but more importantly it distorts the flight path of the ISS. It's moving in an orbit over the plane. Not "around" the globe on a straight path as it appears to. It's on a constant curve 
julio_grr
gimme a little. At work. 
Last edited:
Geki-D
Banned
Except there is no distortion in that video, as evidenced by the other objects at the sides of the screen. At this point you're just outright lying your way out of video evidence.You know what I'm glad you keep trying to irk me
Also still waiting for answers to my other questions.
Last edited:
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
He knows optics, a field of physics, his expertise.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Yeah that's what I do. Let me get up and lie to Neogaf today. One post it's oh! They use fish eye lenses to get the widest angle view! The next post is ah ha! There are no lens tricks YOU LIE! Take your other question and shove it.
Last edited:
Freedom Gate Co.
Banned
The earth can't be flat because the Sun is the center of the universe. Because the sun is the center of the universe, the Earth can't be flat otherwise only half the planet would receive sunshine until the earth flips over. Instead about 75% of the earth receives sunshine, with the darker parts having sunrises or sunsets, because the light moves in an ark, hence the earths roundness. Because the sun is the center of the universe.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
You're back!
Geki-D
Banned
Let's break down what he said, shall we:
-So is the flight path
-The ISS is moving in orbit over "the plane" so I assume the flat Earth
From this we can gather that the ISS is real but it's above the flat Earth. The round Earth we see is nothing but lend curb. He isn't saying the footage is fake.
Okay so let's dig deeper:
Isn't the lack of distortion on everything else odd? What type of magic lens is this that distorts the horizon of the Earth but nothing else? So yes, if you claim this is distorted you are indeed lying.
Despise saying this was real but "distorted" he will now either:
-Say it's actually fake now
-Just not answer the question, like the many others he can't answer.
You never were going to answer it you lying coward.
-The horizon is distorted due to the lens
-So is the flight path
-The ISS is moving in orbit over "the plane" so I assume the flat Earth
From this we can gather that the ISS is real but it's above the flat Earth. The round Earth we see is nothing but lend curb. He isn't saying the footage is fake.
Okay so let's dig deeper:
Isn't the lack of distortion on everything else odd? What type of magic lens is this that distorts the horizon of the Earth but nothing else? So yes, if you claim this is distorted you are indeed lying.
Despise saying this was real but "distorted" he will now either:
-Say it's actually fake now
-Just not answer the question, like the many others he can't answer.
Take your other question and shove it.
You never were going to answer it you lying coward.
Freedom Gate Co.
Banned
The above image is flawed because the lens is effected by the polycorrinal material found in the gasses in the atmosphere, making the earth look like it has an outline but there is none there. Thus making the earth seem bigger than it is and making a curved outline.
Instead since the Sun is the center of the universe, we should use that instead for a bench mark. We need to have clear visualizer from a neutral point of position a bit closer, but not too close, to the sun so that we can see the earths rotation ourselves, thus full proving the illmonatic faculties that are omitted through common research proving the earth is round once and for all.
Yes.
Instead since the Sun is the center of the universe, we should use that instead for a bench mark. We need to have clear visualizer from a neutral point of position a bit closer, but not too close, to the sun so that we can see the earths rotation ourselves, thus full proving the illmonatic faculties that are omitted through common research proving the earth is round once and for all.
Yes.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
You calling me, let me rephrase that, ACCUSING me of lying is only going to strengthen the fact that it's true in my mind so believe what you want. We already went over the lenses being fish eye and now all of a sudden they aren't. You're a joke. The one who puts his thoughts in your mind is a joke too. And his time is short.
Last edited:
This is exactly what I was thinking. If you're ignoring the indisputable science and facts then there is no point in engaging these people in the future.
Elcid
Banned
What kind of sociopath creates a list of other people like that?
Geki-D
Banned
No, this isn't what happened. Someone pointed out that the pics you showed used a fisheye lens, along with a few others. They never said that there's a unbreakable rule that in space only fisheye lenses can exist. The footage in that video is not using a fisheye, that is clear just by looking at it. You saying it's distorted means you're either lying about what you saw or you're lying about having seen the video. This makes you a bald faced liar. You're even lying about what was said in this thread about fisheye lenses, again more purposefully reforming past events to suite your own narrative. Also known as "lying".
All of this is just a deflection to not answer the questions you know you can't answer, and it's not working. It's quite obvious you're willingly throwing up a smoke screen, trying to divert from the topic at hand. Just like the lying you're doing, this too is equally as dishonest.
To be clear, you're yet again guilty of this:
Freedom Gate Co.
Banned
Doing some calculated research I have come up with some new findings, originally I figured the Earth was round, hover it is actually likely to be flat
As you can see the bottom and top zones of the planet are at similar temperatures of 32 and 28 degrees Calvin. This of course is the average for atmospheric temperatures before breach, however Calvin is a circumference based temperature indicator not atmospheric like Celsius and F, So that means the whole zone is that temperature.
That's when things start to not make sense, if the earth was round and the whole planet was rotating, Clavin temperatures would heat up during movement, but they don't here. Not only that, but temperatures don't heat up even when the sun reflects rays like in the picture via Illuminous Vonpuchy (von-poo-chee) so it's always staying at the same temperature. Yet the environmental temperature of the whole middle area of the earth is on average 50 degress F. This would make land temperatures cooler than the Sea temperatures below 100 feet even though that doesn't add up since water produces cooler temperatures. how can land air be 50F but it's warmer under water?
Not to mention the temperature of space is nothing, because space is nothing, heat is matter, so there's no heat in space, which is why space can freeze certain things instantly, so that shows the earth is not moving, otherwise the Illuminous Vonpuchy would indeed cause at least some increase in heat via Calvin.
look here:
The top and bottom edges are not spinning at the same speeds as the middle which is impossible if the whole planet is in rotation, and the light illuminating from the left is not moving at all until half a full turn. It only seems like the earth is rotating because they used a camera trick to speed up the frames but the rotation is much slower in reality.
So what's actually happening here is the Earth is indeed flat, the top and bottom sectors don't actually move, but the middle does move, and it moves part of it to the back away from the sun while it brings the other half from the back to the front. That's why a sunset does not gradually move away, a Sunset will start getting darker and then it will abruptly end.
if the earth was round, the Illuminous Vonpuchy would show lights on both sides of the earth, but as seen in picture 1 it only does it on one, and that's without any heat increase via Calvin.
I think we have finally managed to make sense of this convoluted situation.
As you can see the bottom and top zones of the planet are at similar temperatures of 32 and 28 degrees Calvin. This of course is the average for atmospheric temperatures before breach, however Calvin is a circumference based temperature indicator not atmospheric like Celsius and F, So that means the whole zone is that temperature.
That's when things start to not make sense, if the earth was round and the whole planet was rotating, Clavin temperatures would heat up during movement, but they don't here. Not only that, but temperatures don't heat up even when the sun reflects rays like in the picture via Illuminous Vonpuchy (von-poo-chee) so it's always staying at the same temperature. Yet the environmental temperature of the whole middle area of the earth is on average 50 degress F. This would make land temperatures cooler than the Sea temperatures below 100 feet even though that doesn't add up since water produces cooler temperatures. how can land air be 50F but it's warmer under water?
Not to mention the temperature of space is nothing, because space is nothing, heat is matter, so there's no heat in space, which is why space can freeze certain things instantly, so that shows the earth is not moving, otherwise the Illuminous Vonpuchy would indeed cause at least some increase in heat via Calvin.
look here:
The top and bottom edges are not spinning at the same speeds as the middle which is impossible if the whole planet is in rotation, and the light illuminating from the left is not moving at all until half a full turn. It only seems like the earth is rotating because they used a camera trick to speed up the frames but the rotation is much slower in reality.
So what's actually happening here is the Earth is indeed flat, the top and bottom sectors don't actually move, but the middle does move, and it moves part of it to the back away from the sun while it brings the other half from the back to the front. That's why a sunset does not gradually move away, a Sunset will start getting darker and then it will abruptly end.
if the earth was round, the Illuminous Vonpuchy would show lights on both sides of the earth, but as seen in picture 1 it only does it on one, and that's without any heat increase via Calvin.
I think we have finally managed to make sense of this convoluted situation.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
You'd think with the $30,000 worth of camera gear Nikon sends the astronauts, they might also send a dinky little Nikon P900 for them to use, since apparently that's the only camera that flat earthers trust.
ResilientBanana
Member
So we are beyond
I'm pretty impressed that how disappointed I can actually be.You know what I'm glad you keep trying to irk me
Last edited:
bigedole
Member
I mean, one is proven easily with science, physics and math. The other sounds ridiculous at face value, and though I choose not to believe it, isn't something that can actually be proven or disproven either way. Don't know why you feel the need to act like they're on the same level of rationality when they are very clearly not.
Thurible
Member
How is believing in God in any way similar to denying some of the basic fundamental laws and forces of our physical reality? I don't see what's crazy about believing in God while believing in scientific truth.
SKM1
Member
The second assertion, as stupid as it might sound, is not demonstrably false.
Big-G
Member
ResilientBanana
Member
Don't confuse faith and fact. It is a fact that earth and nearly every other planet in the known universe is round. There are two things no one has ever seen however is Jesus, God, or a flat Earth.
What benefit does anyone have to gain by trying to prove that the Earth is flat?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Saying God can't be disproven is like saying Unicorns or tooth faries can't be disproven. And science does indeed dispute God if you ever open the Bible and try to interpret anything literally. Of course everything has to be a metaphor now so that science doesn't absolutely obliterate it (big bang, evolution). I just laugh to myself when people think flat Earth or moon conspiracy are a problem, without realizing how much of a detriment to progress and intellectual development the persistent belief in a magical sky fairy has been. Bah.
Thurible
Member
Fundamentalism does have problems on this front, but many judeo-christians aren't fundamentalists. Even the many peoples who wrote the bible weren't 100% literal in the stories they wrote as evidenced by their style, audience, meaning, etc. The bible is not monolithic, if you can't see that then you are as much of a fundamentalist as a certain person on this thread.
None of those theories contradict christian belief. Some were even developed by noted christians.
Keep laughing then, its your own problem if you can't see that there is no contradiction and that religious people aren't slowing scientific progress.
God bless, man.
Every time science makes progress, religion has to make excuses. What kind of crap text for understanding life/the world is it if it's filled with metaphors with infinite interpretations. Just sounds like BS to me. The big bang and evolution are in direct contradiction to the Bible, unless you do the endless dance of reinterpretive BS. Science doesn't do such dances.
There is this interesting trend of scientists in particular becoming more and more athiest. So the people who are the smartest on Earth, who do careful experiments to study the world, are overwhelmingly dismissing the notion of God as fiction. What does that tell you?
Fantasy worlds with easy answers to complicated questions are easy to digest, but "God" gave you a brain for a reason, maybe start using it?