Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

Legit question wrote:

Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth. ... A spinning wet tennis ball, for instance, has the exact opposite effect of the supposed ball-Earth!

Any water poured over it simply falls off the sides, and giving it a spin results in water flying off 360 degrees like a dog shaking after a bath. Astronomers concede the wet tennis ball example displays the opposite effect of their supposed ball-Earth, but claim that at some unknown mass, the magic adhesive properties of gravity suddenly kick in

You must be illiterate because I already explained how gravity works.

Scientists do not say gravity keeps the oceans on Earth. Antarctica does. The water flows downward and freezes there like an icicle. Some water still escapes but fortunately it is a slow process. Unimpeded gravity would rapidly drain all the water away, as happened on Venus and Mercury where it doesn't freeze.

Scientists have directly observed matter as it falls off the Earth:

But matter is currently gained at the same rate, falling onto the north pole:

If this equilibrium is unbalanced by global warming melting Antarctica, Earth is doomed. Global warming deniers should be thrown in prison.

There is much more matter in the northern hemisphere as it accumulates there, because anything that drifts south of the equator is driven inexorably further southward by gravity. The few permanent landmasses in the south are rich enough in metals to stick to the Earth by magnetism, which, you see, is a different force than gravity and much stronger. Take a magnetic tennis ball and put some iron filings on the bottom half and spin it around as fast as you like, they will stay right there.

Which would prove the earth is a sphere. What are the flat earthers theory on this?

Star wrote:

6 months of darkness wrote:

Why do places like Estonia have 6 months of sunlight and darkness

Because the sun goes around the earth at different angles throughout the year.

jjjjjj wrote:

I have flown around the world over a 2 1/2 year period, first from California to Philly, Philly to London, London to Zambia, Zambia to Malawi, Malawi to Kenya, Ethiopia, Dubai, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, San Francisco. So, I am a believer that the earth is not flat.

But you never done a trans-Antarctic flight. Forget the globe vs flat earth argument for a moment. Has it been done by going under the earth and over to the top?

Legit question wrote:

Bart Rutan wrote:

I am a pilot. Think about it. If I try to fly from somewhere up around Alaska and head for the tip of South America by the time I get there it's Australia.

If you flew from the tip of Argentina or Chile over Antartica, over the South Pole then what?

I'd end up somewhere else on the other side.. We're not talking outer space here.

Legit question wrote:

If you flew from the tip of Argentina or Chile over Antartica, over the South Pole then what?

You would fall off.

Southern hemisphere flight is very dangerous, and flight under Antarctica can only be accomplished by the most technically skilled pilots using planes loaded with powerful electromagnets.

yiuygjg wrote:

Is this the dumbest thread in the history of dumb threads?

All of the dumb posts are coming from people arguing that the earth isn't flat.

The same people probably have arguments with little kids about Santa Claus.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Legit question wrote:

If you flew from the tip of Argentina or Chile over Antartica, over the South Pole then what?

You would fall off.

Southern hemisphere flight is very dangerous, and flight under Antarctica can only be accomplished by the most technically skilled pilots using planes loaded with powerful electromagnets.

You're not pilot, Bad Wigins. jjjjj and Bart are and I'm waiting for their replies.

Legit question wrote:

Regarding the Orion mission to Mars Project, why did NASA engineer, Kelly Smith, admit that a manned spacecraft cannot go safely through the Van Allen radiation belts today? Was the 1960's technology superior today, what gives?

http://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE

What gives is that you can't be bothered to do basic research. The Moon astronauts were in the Van Allen belts for a short period of time. The Orion spaceship would need to be in space longer and deal with much higher levels of radiation. Which, NASA actually said, if you bothered to check.

Are you going to admit you were completely wrong about there being no plane flights from Australia to South America?

Legit question wrote:

You're not pilot, Bad Wigins. jjjjj and Bart are and I'm waiting for their replies.

Maybe I'm a pilot and maybe I'm not, but I can assure you noone posting here is certified to fly under Antarctica. That's like astronaut level.

Bart Rutan wrote:

Legit question wrote:

If you flew from the tip of Argentina or Chile over Antartica, over the South Pole then what?

I'd end up somewhere else on the other side.. We're not talking outer space here.

Ok, you seem to be hedging a bit. You are not definitey saying that it has been done, either. Again, forgetting the flat vs globe discussion, it seems to me that commercial flights or pilots have not gone over the Antarctic and then up over to head North again. Thanks for the reply.

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Regarding the Orion mission to Mars Project, why did NASA engineer, Kelly Smith, admit that a manned spacecraft cannot go safely through the Van Allen radiation belts today? Was the 1960's technology superior today, what gives?

http://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE

What gives is that you can't be bothered to do basic research. The Moon astronauts were in the Van Allen belts for a short period of time. The Orion spaceship would need to be in space longer and deal with much higher levels of radiation. Which, NASA actually said, if you bothered to check.

Are you going to admit you were completely wrong about there being no plane flights from Australia to South America?

Yes, I was wrong about that. Will you admit to your errors as well?

Legit question wrote:

Bart Rutan wrote:

I'd end up somewhere else on the other side.. We're not talking outer space here.

Ok, you seem to be hedging a bit. You are not definitey saying that it has been done, either. Again, forgetting the flat vs globe discussion, it seems to me that commercial flights or pilots have not gone over the Antarctic and then up over to head North again. Thanks for the reply.

Obviously we're not allowed because of the lack of support available there.

But for two of the nine days of my round the globe record I flew over Antarctica just to check and see if there was a hole there.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Legit question wrote:

You're not pilot, Bad Wigins. jjjjj and Bart are and I'm waiting for their replies.

Maybe I'm a pilot and maybe I'm not, but I can assure you noone posting here is certified to fly under Antarctica. That's like astronaut level.

6 months of darkness wrote:

Which would prove the earth is a sphere. What are the flat earthers theory on this?

Star wrote:

Because the sun goes around the earth at different angles throughout the year.

Although Earth is a sphere, that doesn't prove anything. The sun could go around a cube at different angles too.

Legit question wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Maybe I'm a pilot and maybe I'm not, but I can assure you noone posting here is certified to fly under Antarctica. That's like astronaut level.

is it because jet pilots have to fly in an inverted position right? Has it been done or not, no evidence presented yet.

Because of the technical skill required to control the powerful electromagnets. How many times do I have to explain this? Aren't you aware which direction gravity goes? Hint: it starts with "S"

Without electromagnets they would fall into outer space.

The Lunar Module/Capsule shielding in the 1960s technology must have been very good to keep the astronauts alive and today's isn't?

big SNL skit wrote:

The flat earth movement is so retarded that I'm not convinced anyone actually believes it. Is it probably just a few online trolls trying to be funny, or some kind of internet joke? Seriously, it is so stupid that there's no way it can possibly be real.

They're real. Good for shits and giggles, and occasionally they can be used as coffee tables. Otherwise, not much use.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Legit question wrote: is it because jet pilots have to fly in an inverted position right? Has it been done or not, no evidence presented yet.

Because of the technical skill required to control the powerful electromagnets. How many times do I have to explain this? Aren't you aware which direction gravity goes? Hint: it starts with "S"

Without electromagnets they would fall into outer space.

Legit question wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Because of the technical skill required to control the powerful electromagnets. How many times do I have to explain this? Aren't you aware which direction gravity goes? Hint: it starts with "S"

Without electromagnets they would fall into outer space.

. Ok, I will accept your electromagnet argument. Let's consider a plane flying along the equator. On the globe model, would that mean a 90 degree angle to be level with the horizon? Help me understand.

And these same electromagnets will exert a powerful down force if one flew over the North Pole too?