Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

When down is always in the direction of the center of a globe earth, then none of these things are happening.

Legit question wrote:

Do you actually believe that it is possible to stand upside down in Australia while taking a shower, or driving a car sideways on the equator or landing in a plane upside down in Antarctica? Really? The mental gymnastics that you have to perform to justify a ball is beyond ridiculous.

Open your eyes.

Major Sun wrote:

Do you actually believe that it is possible to stand upside down in Australia while taking a shower, or driving a car sideways on the equator or landing in a plane upside down in Antarctica?

Have you ever been to Australia or Antarctica and seen what they have to deal with? Clearly not.

I explained a long time ago there's a reason why most of the land mass is in the northern hemisphere, and there's a mile-long icicle around the south pole.

Major Sun did not write that...

Bad Wigins wrote:

Major Sun did not write:

Do you actually believe that it is possible to stand upside down in Australia while taking a shower, or driving a car sideways on the equator or landing in a plane upside down in Antarctica?

Have you ever been to Australia or Antarctica and seen what they have to deal with? Clearly not.

I explained a long time ago there's a reason why most of the land mass is in the northern hemisphere, and there's a mile-long icicle around the south pole.

Likewise this is mixing up arguments. With a changing sun size, you are arguing a close sun versus a distant sun -- this says nothing about the flatness or globeness of the earth.Yet another "there would NEVER be ..." mis-constructed claim about the globe attempting to show a contradiction.A better flat-earth prediction, before making a video, or camera measurements, of the apparent sun size, is to predict how big would a 32 mile sun, 3000 miles above the surface look at high noon, and, using the law of perspective, at sunrise or sunset. Then confirm the prediction with real measurements.

Legit question wrote:

If the Earth was a globe, there would NEVER be a change in the size of the Sun.

Or other forces are at play such as electromagnetism and the diamagnetic properties of water that Tesla theorised.

Major Sun wrote:

Why don't you? This can all be done with simple trigonometry and right triangles.

To an observer at 121,000 ft, above a globe with a 3959 mile radius:

The horizon appears 426.6 miles away

The viewing angle is 6.15 degrees below the horizontal eye level

Rayo. wrote:

Why don't you plug 121,000 ft into number 3, see what you get.

Is that what you can see here then?

Or not.Water is not very magnetic, nor is the moon.Diamagnetism is a fairly weak force.Is the Earth particularly magnetic in Jersey?

Rayo. wrote:

Or other forces are at play such as electromagnetism and the diamagnetic properties of water that Tesla theorised.

I didn't watch the full 3 hour video.I didn't see any accurate measurements.The camera looks like a GoPro with a wide-angle lens introducing visual distortion.

Rayo. wrote:

Major Sun wrote:

Why don't you? This can all be done with simple trigonometry and right triangles.

To an observer at 121,000 ft, above a globe with a 3959 mile radius:

The horizon appears 426.6 miles away

The viewing angle is 6.15 degrees below the horizontal eye level

Is that what you can see here then?

I can prove the Earth is a globe.

The earth is a globe, but these flat earth guys are killing you globe guys in this argument. You need to go back to 5th grade science class.

Bad job wrote:

The earth is a globe, but these flat earth guys are killing you globe guys in this argument. You need to go back to 5th grade science class.

According to who?

Major Sun wrote:

When down is always in the direction of the center of a globe earth, then none of these things are happening.

Legit question wrote:

Do you actually believe that it is possible to stand upside down in Australia while taking a shower, or driving a car sideways on the equator or landing in a plane upside down in Antarctica? Really? The mental gymnastics that you have to perform to justify a ball is beyond ridiculous.

Open your eyes.

Wrong. There is no down on your ball model. The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly explained the physics of falling objects long before Isaac Newton bestowed his theory of “gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down.

To fit with the heliocentric model which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims “gravity” does. 

Here is an experiment for a globe believer:

If you dig a hole from the UK straight down to Australia going down feet first, how would you find your body coming out on the other side? Feet first, of course!

You would be near the bottom of the so-called ball. Yet your precious gravity theory makes it very clear, there is no up or down on a ball.

Wake up and use some common sense. Try again.

Anonymous posting is fun wrote:

Bad job wrote:

The earth is a globe, but these flat earth guys are killing you globe guys in this argument. You need to go back to 5th grade science class.

According to who?

Absolutely correct, sir. The Earth has never been proven to be moving. However, observe the hysterical reaction of ball believers to the very mention of these facts; anger, ad hominem and straw man arguments.

The burden of proof lies with those claiming to know the Earth is a ball and not upon those who doubt with good reason.

Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed to detect earth's motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe.

Major Sun complained that:

Major Sun did not write that...

I wrote, correctly, that:

Have you ever been to Australia or Antarctica and seen what they have to deal with? Clearly not.

I explained a long time ago there's a reason why most of the land mass is in the northern hemisphere, and there's a mile-long icicle around the south pole.

You all may notice LQ rarely tries to counter any of my points.

Legit question wrote:

Anonymous posting is fun wrote:

Absolutely correct, sir.

Thanks!

Bad Wigins wrote:

Major Sun complained that:

Major Sun did not write that...

You all may notice LQ rarely tries to counter any of my points.

You have made countless dumb arguments throughout this thread and many others have called you out on it. That is why I put you on ignore.

Major Sun wrote:

Or not.

Water is not very magnetic, nor is the moon.

Diamagnetism is a fairly weak force.

Is the Earth particularly magnetic in Jersey?

Rayo. wrote:

Or other forces are at play such as electromagnetism and the diamagnetic properties of water that Tesla theorised.

Is that so:

Surely a stronger force than gravity that a butterfly can easily overcome.

How many times can you be wrong? Let me count the ways.

1) In "my" ball model, down is actually towards the center of the ball.

2) What is the law of density? This looks like a "flat-earth" fabrication of a law that never existed. If not, what is the formula for the law of density that perfectly describes the physics of falling objects that makes Newton's formulas superfluous?

3) The law of buoyancy is a function of the weight of the fluid displaced by an object immersed in that fluid. The weight of the fluid is a function of --- gravity.

4) What is the density of the sun and the moon, and medium it is placed in? If "it is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down", then shouldn't these "objects placed in less dense mediums sink down"? Are the sun and the moon less dense than the atmosphere at 3000 miles?

5) Bouyancy and Density is a demonstration of the effect of gravity. Newton's formulas with gravity not only accurately explain everyday physical observations on Earth, but the same formulas accurately describe every observations of planetary orbits. Laws of density and buoyancy, without gravity, do not. These laws of density and buoyancy provide less than perfect explanations than Newtons law of gravity.

6) "Not a single experiment in history"?!? In all of history, countless experiments and every day observations demonstrate over and over the same gravitational attraction according to Newton's equations. In 1997, the "NEAR Shoemaker" satellite was attracted by the mass of a nearby asteroid "253 Mathilde". In 1998, a failed Asiasat 3 satellite was sent around the moon, using the moon's gravity to produce a better orbit. Today scientists can measure the force of gravity with an atom interferometer. You can perform your own experiment from home:

www.pasco.com/prodCatalog/EX/EX-5550_universal-gravitational-constant-experiment/index.cfm

One you got partly right:

1) If you dig a hole from UK to Australia, and fell through feet first to the other side, you would be upside down the instant you pass through the center of the earth.

I'm wide awake.

Yes. What are we looking at? Is the repulsion magnetic? Is it surface tension of the water? Ironic how the very instant he said that water never stays on the magnet, a bead of water stayed on the magnet.But where is the giant magnet causing high tides and low tides, in perfect cycle with the moon's orbit? The moon is not very magnetic, and the weak magnetism there is, is not dipolar. Do we see large magnetic fluctuations in the earth synchronized to the tides? Surely some flat-earther, building on Tesla's theories have performed real measurements to back this up, and describe the tides we see everyday.

Rayo. wrote:

Major Sun wrote:

Or not.

Water is not very magnetic, nor is the moon.

Diamagnetism is a fairly weak force.

Is the Earth particularly magnetic in Jersey?

Is that so:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NFq-Fq_msL8

Surely a stronger force than gravity that a butterfly can easily overcome.