Questions About the Flat Earth

Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2015

The Sun and Moon luminaries revolve around the Earth once every 24 hours illuminating like spotlights the areas over which they pass. The Sun’s annual journey from tropic to tropic, solstice to solstice, is what determines the length and character of days, nights and seasons. This is why equatorial regions experience almost year-round summer and heat while higher latitudes North and especially South experience more distinct seasons with harsh winters.



The heliocentric model claims seasons change based on the ball-Earth’s alleged “axial tilt” and “elliptical orbit” around the Sun. Their flawed current model even places us closest to the Sun (91,400,000 miles) in January when its actually winter, and farthest from the Sun (94,500,000 miles) in July when its actually summer throughout much of the Earth. They say due to the ball-Earth’s tilt, different places receive different amounts of direct sunlight and that is what produces the seasonal and temperature changes. This makes little sense, however, because if the Sun’s heat travels over ninety million miles to reach the ball-Earth, how could a slight tilt, a mere few thousand miles maximum, negate the Sun’s ninety million mile journey, giving us simultaneous tropical summers and Antarctic winters?

~ Eric Dubay

“The earth is a stretched-out structure, which diverges from the central north in all directions towards the south. The equator, being midway between the north center and the southern circumference, divides the course of the sun into north and south declination. The longest circle round the world which the sun makes, is when it has reached its greatest southern declination. Gradually going northwards the circle is contracted. In about three months after the southern extremity of its path has been reached, the sun makes a circle round the equator. Still pursuing a northerly course as it goes round and above the world, in another three months the greatest northern declination is reached, when the sun again begins to go towards the south. In north latitudes, when the sun is going north, it rises earlier each day, is higher at noon and sets later; while in southern latitudes at the same time, the sun as a matter of course rises later, reaches a lesser altitude at noon and sets earlier. In northern latitudes during the southern summer, say from September to December, the sun rises later each day, is lower at noon and sets earlier; while in the south he rises earlier, reaches a higher altitude at noon, and sets later each day. This movement round the earth daily is the cause of the alternations of day and night; while his northerly and southerly courses produce the seasons. When the sun is south of the equator it is summer in the south and winter in the north; and vice versa.

The fact of the alternation of the seasons flatly contradicts the Newtonian delusion that the earth revolves in an orbit round the sun. It is said that summer is caused by the earth being nearest the sun, and winter by its being farthest from the sun. But if the reader will follow the argument in any text book he will see that according to the theory, when the earth is nearest the sun there must be summer in both northern and southern latitudes; and in like manner when it is farthest from the sun, it must be winter all over the earth at the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would then be farthest from the sun!!! In short, it is impossible to account for the recurrence of the seasons on the assumption that the earth is globular and that it revolves in an orbit around the sun.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (124-125)

“The seasons are caused by the Sun’s circuit round the Earth in a spiral ecliptic. In the Winter Solstice (December 21st), the Sun is vertical over the Tropic of Capricorn. Looking South from London, he appears to make a small circuit in the Southern sky, during the same period he is seen to cross the sky at almost overhead in Cape Town, thus causing Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. In the Summer Solstice (June 21st), the Sun is vertical over the Tropic of Cancer, (nearly overhead in London), while looking North from Cape Town, he appears to make a small circuit in the Northern sky, causing Winter in the Southern and Summer in the Northern Hemisphere.” -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (7)

For more specifics about the Sun, Moon and stars see the following video:

Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2015

Another assumption and supposed proof of Earth’s shape, heliocentrists claim that lunar eclipses are caused by the shadow of the ball-Earth occulting the Moon. The idea is that the Sun, Earth, and Moon spheres perfectly align like three billiard balls in a row so that the Sun’s light casts the Earth’s shadow onto the Moon. Unfortunately for heliocentrists, this explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon! For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 180 degree syzygy.

“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”

As early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.” Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth's shadow and another explanation must be sought.



As for gravity, it does not exist. If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards. If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster. If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground. And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground. Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with “gravity.” The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight. That is very different from “gravity.” Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe.

Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both.

“Take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon. By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth. Here we may ask, why - if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation - does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth? The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent. Precisely so; but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun? What is the cause of this permanence?” -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

“If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?” -A. Giberne, “Sun, Moon, and Stars” (27)

Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science.

“That bodies in some instances are seen to approach each other is a fact; but that their mutual approach is due to an ‘ attraction,’ or pulling process, on the part of these bodies, is, after all, a mere theory. Hypotheses may be sometimes admissible, but when they are invented to support other hypotheses, they are not only to be doubted but discredited and discarded. The hypothesis of a universal force called Gravitation is based upon, and was indeed invented with a view to support another hypothesis, namely, that the earth and sea together make up a vast globe, whirling away through space, and therefore needing some force or forces to guide it in its mad career, and so control it as to make it conform to what is called its annual orbit round the sun! The theory first of all makes the earth to be a globe; then not a perfect globe, but an oblate spheroid, flattened at the ‘poles’; then more oblate, until it was in danger of becoming so flattened that it would be like a cheese; and, passing over minor variations of form, we are finally told that the earth is pear-shaped, and that the ‘elipsoid has been replaced by an apoid!’ What shape it may assume next we cannot tell; it will depend upon the whim or fancy of some astute and speculating ‘scientist.’” -Lady Blount and Albert Smith, “Zetetic Astronomy” (14)

How is it that “Gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!? How is it that “Gravity” holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force? How is it that “Gravity” can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction? Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of Gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses!

Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2015

As for how big the flat Earth is, it's still a mystery whether the Antarctic ice-plateau which surrounds us terminates in an edge like Dark City, a barrier/dome like The Truman Show, or is an infinite plane like video games.

“How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction ‘human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice,’ extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (91)

Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2015

Exactly why does the bird tweet and fly, while the snake hisses and slithers?
The Sun and Moon are the way they are and move the way they do because they were designed that way.

You Were Intelligently Designed, Stupid!

"What physical law causes the Sun and Moon to move the way they do?" What physical law causes you to be the way you are and move the way you do? What physical law causes objects denser than the medium surrounding them to fall and objects less dense than the medium surrounding them to rise? Is it "Gravity?" Is it just "Weight/Density?" It is what it is regardless of what you name it. Nature is nature, and is the way it is because it was designed to be that way. "Physical laws" are just observations of nature extrapolated into language, they are not "things" in and of themselves somehow above nature causing nature to be the way it is. The conscious intelligent creative force behind nature (i.e. "God, Brahma, Tao, Oneness, Infinite Consciousness etc.") is why the Sun and Moon move, look, act, and feel the way they do. The atheistic scientific materialistic establishment has taught you there are "physical laws" randomly and unconsciously created by their Big Bang non-God, and this non-God's "laws" are the reason everything is the way it is and moves the way it moves.

Post by Admin on Mar 6, 2015

The days in Antarctica are comparatively short to everywhere else on Earth, with swifter dawn and dusk periods also. From approximately May to July every year there is perpetual night and the Sun never makes it over the Antarctic horizon. They lie to us and claim Antarctica has a "midnight sun" like the Arctic, periods of many days/weeks of continuous sunlight as seen here:



You can find many such videos of the Arctic Midnight Sun online, but you'll only find this one following, clearly fake video of the "Antarctic Midnight Sun" full of cut scenes claiming "the Sun never sets in Antarctica" which is a total lie. The Sun is never seen directly over-head at the high-noon position in Antarctica at any time during the year. In fact it barely rises more than 20-30 degrees above the horizon daily and never stays above the horizon for anything close to 24+ hours as it does in Arctic regions:

Post by Admin on Mar 6, 2015

How to calculate the size of the Sun and the Moon?

By measuring with sextants and calculating with plane trigonometry both the Sun and Moon figure to be only about 32 miles in diameter and approximately 3,000 miles away.

“Regiments of figures are paraded with all the learned jargon for which science is famous, but one might as well look at the changing clouds in the sky and seek for certainty there, as to expect to get it from the propounders of modern astronomy. But is there no means of testing these ever-changing never-stable speculations and bringing them to the scrutiny of the hard logic of fact? Indeed there is. The distance of the sun can be measured with much precision, the same way as a tree or a house, or church steeple is measured, by plane triangulation. It is the principle on which a house is built, a table made or a man-of-war constructed … The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeeze itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only? But look at the distance, say the professors! We have already done that and not one of the wise men we have so often challenged, has ever attempted to refute the principle on which we measure the sun’s distance … If the navigator neglects to apply the sun’s semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun’s diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. Let him disprove this who can. If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (114-120)

Or, you can just believe the constantly changing figures coming from the ball-Earth authorities    Heliocentrists’ astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but they have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million!

“As the sun, according to ‘science’ may be anything from 3 to 104 million miles away, there is plenty of ‘space’ to choose from. It is like the showman and the child. You pay your money - for various astronomical works - and you take your choice as to what distance you wish the sun to be. If you are a modest person, go in for a few millions; but if you wish to be ‘very scientific’ and to be ‘mathematically certain’ of your figures, then I advise you to make your choice somewhere about a hundred millions. You will at least have plenty of ‘space’ to retreat into, should the next calculation be against the figures of your choice. You can always add a few millions to ‘keep up with the times,’ or take off as many as may be required to adjust the distance to the ‘very latest’ accurate column of figures. Talk about ridicule, the whole of modern astronomy is like a farcical comedy - full of surprises. One never knows what monstrous or ludicrous absurdity may come forth next. You must not apply the ordinary rules of common-sense to astronomical guesswork. No, the thing would fall to pieces if you did.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (115)

Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2015

Does our weight change (less) at higher elevation?
What causes the Coriolis Effect?
What causes the Eotvos Effect?

I'm not sure you do "weigh" less at a higher altitude. I found this article claiming a 150lb person at sea-level would weigh 149.92 lbs at 10,000 feet, but I don't see any experimental evidence proving such a phenomenon truly exists. If it does exist I'm sure it can be accounted for with things like pressure or relative densities without having to assume a fictional force like "gravity" to explain it.

The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. However, the reality is, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.

“While the premise makes sense - that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.” -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?” Science.HowStuffWorks.com

The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. Again, however, the same problems remain. Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind? What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect? Why does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all? If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force? And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently?

The Eotvos effect is new to me but it appears to be the combination of two fictional forces, "gravity" and "the Earth's spin," plus some confusing, complex mathematics to make this whole thing seem advanced and legit, and so yet another scientist can be immortalized by attaching his name to this "effect" he devised.

Schpankme wrote:Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2015

As for how big the flat Earth is, it's still a mystery whether the Antarctic ice-plateau which surrounds us terminates in an edge like Dark City, a barrier/dome like The Truman Show, or is an infinite plane like video games.

...

I do not think that an infinite plane is a possibility.

Following experiments at his laboratory in Colorado, Nikola Tesla stated,

"Subsequently similar observations were also made by my assistant, Mr. Fritz Lowenstein, and shortly afterward several admirable opportunities presented themselves which brought out, still more forcibly and unmistakably, the true nature of the wonderful phenomenon. No doubt whatever remained: I was observing stationary waves.

"... Impossible as it seemed, this planet, despite its vast extent, behaved like a conductor of limited dimensions."

~ Tesla, N., 1904, Electrical World and Engineer, May 5. (Emphasis mine.)

Nev wrote:

Schpankme wrote:Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2015

As for how big the flat Earth is, it's still a mystery whether the Antarctic ice-plateau which surrounds us terminates in an edge like Dark City, a barrier/dome like The Truman Show, or is an infinite plane like video games.

...

I do not think that an infinite plane is a possibility.

Following experiments at his laboratory in Colorado, Nikola Tesla stated,

"Subsequently similar observations were also made by my assistant, Mr. Fritz Lowenstein, and shortly afterward several admirable opportunities presented themselves which brought out, still more forcibly and unmistakably, the true nature of the wonderful phenomenon. No doubt whatever remained: I was observing stationary waves.

"... Impossible as it seemed, this planet, despite its vast extent, behaved like a conductor of limited dimensions."

~ Tesla, N., 1904, Electrical World and Engineer, May 5. (Emphasis mine.)

Thank you so much for posting this. We do not in any way believe or support the 'infinite plane' theory, and it is something that only Shills seem to promote, but at the same time we don't know what the 'edges' of the planet are like, because we are banned from visiting them by the UN, and any ideas that we do have are simply theories at this point.

What Tesla said seems likely to me.

You are welcome.

When I read Tesla's declaration that he had observed stationary waves in the Earth, it provided me with very strong evidence that the Earth is a circular plane.

I believe that we are also prohibited from attempting to reach the North Pole, is that correct? Certainly it is not allowed to fly over it.

If you started traveling due East in a straight line, would you eventually find yourself no longer going due East, but rather increasingly South-East, assuming you maintained that straight trajectory, since on the Flat Earth "East" is actually a circle around the North Pole? Could this be a basis for an experiment proving the Earth is flat?

Nev wrote:You are welcome.

When I read Tesla's declaration that he had observed stationary waves in the Earth, it provided me with very strong evidence that the Earth is a circular plane.

I believe that we are also prohibited from attempting to reach the North Pole, is that correct? Certainly it is not allowed to fly over it.

They patrol the north and south, I think it would be very hard to travel to either undetected.

I was on a flat earth FB page earlier and a GE'er posted a argument of the earth being a globe because if you travel X distance in 1 direction turn 90 degrees travel the same distance as X, turn 90 degree one more time and travel X distance you will be in the same spot as you began. is there any research i have not come across to refute this?

KeAlohaSean wrote:I was on a flat earth FB page earlier and a GE'er posted a argument of the earth being a globe because if you travel X distance in 1 direction turn 90 degrees travel the same distance as X, turn 90 degree one more time and travel X distance you will be in the same spot as you began. is there any research i have not come across to refute this?

There are a lot of false claims of supposedly scientific proof. This debunked claim usually is accompanied by actual distances in the thousands of miles. You go find us a triangular connection of 6000 mile long straight roads and then we can "prove" this. It's as scientific a claim as pointing to the Moon and planets and saying, "Well those look spherical so we are also spherical." They know there is no realistic way to pull this off so they can make the claim as some kind of proof. If you know about spherical geometry you'd know that going ANY distance in a straight line and turning 90 degrees 2 times to wind up back where you came from would only work at the quarter diameter lines relative to the starting position. Meaning on a globe Earth if you started at the North Pole, you'd have to travel all the way to the Equator, make a 90 degree turn, then travel 1/4 of the way around the sphere staying on the equator to the East or West, then turn back North which would be a 90 degree turn and head back. Who has done this on our world? No one...exactly. If it were possible at any other distance then it would be possible at ALL distances. If you're doing this proof without truly traveling that far then you're not actually turning a true 90 degrees or you're not truly traveling in a straight line after each turn. This same geometric issue is why you can't lay out an equilateral triangle down on a sphere because the 180 degree angle limit for triangles is only valid on 2 dimensional planes. Just fire back at these jokers that we can try a REAL scientific experiment with a plane. We'll make sure we're at a specific altitude and we'll fly for 5000 miles all while making sure we're not dipping our nose down for ANY spherical adjustment and see if we fly off the globe Earth.

KeAlohaSean wrote:
the earth being a globe
three 90 degrees turn(s)
you will be in the same spot as you began

Water cannot cling to spinning ball.
Ignore the Balltards, they will have you asking every asinine question they can conceive.

Heliocentric Priests invent words to explain every unnatural phenomena that becomes obstacles to common sense.

damnice wrote:

KeAlohaSean wrote:I was on a flat earth FB page earlier and a GE'er posted a argument of the earth being a globe because if you travel X distance in 1 direction turn 90 degrees travel the same distance as X, turn 90 degree one more time and travel X distance you will be in the same spot as you began. is there any research i have not come across to refute this?

There are a lot of false claims of supposedly scientific proof. This debunked claim usually is accompanied by actual distances in the thousands of miles. You go find us a triangular connection of 6000 mile long straight roads and then we can "prove" this. It's as scientific a claim as pointing to the Moon and planets and saying, "Well those look spherical so we are also spherical." They know there is no realistic way to pull this off so they can make the claim as some kind of proof. If you know about spherical geometry you'd know that going ANY distance in a straight line and turning 90 degrees 2 times to wind up back where you came from would only work at the quarter diameter lines relative to the starting position. Meaning on a globe Earth if you started at the North Pole, you'd have to travel all the way to the Equator, make a 90 degree turn, then travel 1/4 of the way around the sphere staying on the equator to the East or West, then turn back North which would be a 90 degree turn and head back. Who has done this on our world? No one...exactly. If it were possible at any other distance then it would be possible at ALL distances. If you're doing this proof without truly traveling that far then you're not actually turning a true 90 degrees or you're not truly traveling in a straight line after each turn. This same geometric issue is why you can't lay out an equilateral triangle down on a sphere because the 180 degree angle limit for triangles is only valid on 2 dimensional planes. Just fire back at these jokers that we can try a REAL scientific experiment with a plane. We'll make sure we're at a specific altitude and we'll fly for 5000 miles all while making sure we're not dipping our nose down for ANY spherical adjustment and see if we fly off the globe Earth.

Thanks! with you comment i was able to reply to there video refuting all 10 reasons we live on a globe.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1692245997695903/permalink/1706247782962391/

Schpankme wrote:

KeAlohaSean wrote:
the earth being a globe
three 90 degrees turn(s)
you will be in the same spot as you began

Water cannot cling to spinning ball.
Ignore the Balltards, they will have you asking every asinine question they can conceive.

Heliocentric Priests invent words to explain every unnatural phenomena that becomes obstacles to common sense.

Oh yah man, i %100 know the earth is flat i was just curious about that one example they used.

KeAlohaSean wrote:
i 100% know the earth is flat
i was just curious about that one example

On the flat Earth we use the "Equilateral Triangle", which requires 60 deg turns.  

I love when ballers post ridiculous images such as these and then claim them as "proof" - shows their asinine level of thinking. It's no different than NASA creating composite ball images, or Hollywood faking gravity in a movie - it might look plausible, but it's far from the reality.

Great rebuttals, fellow researchers, looks like this has been beaten to death, but here my 2 cents anyway.

Lines and triangles, including right-angled triangles, are defined on a plane and a sphere using different geometries. Taking the definition of a “right angle” to be “90 degrees” in this story is a logical fallacy, because it equates the two geometries and their respective definitions of angles & distances.

In planar geometry, the sum of the measures of all the angles always adds up to two right angled triangles, taught to us as “180 degrees”.

In spherical geometry, the sum of the measures of the angles of a triangle on a sphere varies according to how much of the sphere the triangle covers. A shape on a sphere distorts as you change scale. Similar shapes that are not congruent, do not exist on a sphere. The ratio of the circumference to the diameter is not constant but varies according to the size of the circle.

If you decide that the triangle with vertices on the same great circle is the “largest” triangle, then the largest angle measure sum is “540 degrees”. This is a triangle that sums to a “measure” of 6 right angles in planar geometry, an absurd contradiction, reached because we equated two different “degrees” of “measure” from entirely different geometries.

The mathematical neutral phrasing for a correct comparison would be “a polar bear at the North Pole first travels a certain distance South, then the same distance West, then turns North and travels the same distance again to get back to where he started”.

On a space ball, (viewed from space), this is a piece of its spherical surface with changing vertex positions (Lat, Long) and whose angles depend on the ratio of its surface area to the total surface area of the ball, i.e. how big we make the imaginary ball.

On a plane this is an equilateral triangle that scales to any size, and works just fine on flat earth, always assuming the bear has a compass of course ;-)

Note:
A Sphere is mathematically defined as the 2D surface that wraps around a 3D object, called a Ball. We are to imagine an intrinsic view of ourselves crawling around the surface.
A mathematical Ball is defined as the surface (aka the Sphere) AND the points within the Ball. We are to imagine an extrinsic view of a space ball.

Why do you believe that Plato was a heliocentric, ball earth-er? I have been reading Plato, Aristotle and their commentators for over 30 years, and although I am not an expert, I think I have proof that they did not believe that . Please let me know where you think would be a good place to make my case.

Without any answers to the above, my case is this: I believe that some interested parties in the past, have altered Plato and Aristotles works to include that "everyone believed the earth was spherical because as ships sailed away, they would disappear gradually from the hull to the mast". My contention is that when they replaced the flat earth with spherical, they forgot to remove the parts about the Firmament and the dome spheres. One of the domes is specifically called the "Inerratic Sphere". The spheres carry the sun, moon, planets with their related stars, the fixed stars and the sphere of the either. Obviously, the ball earth only works with the heliocentric version, so leaving the firmament and dome spheres in only works with the flat earth version. Plato and Aristotle are both full of references to the domes and their mechanisms. Any comments?

For those that regard Plato in high esteem, such as myself, you may research page 157 of "Theon of Smyrna, translated by R & D Lawlor. The subtitle is "Mathematics useful for understanding Plato". On the page specified, find "On the myth of Pamphylian", also in Plato's Republic. Plato's Republic, in Vol 1 of "The works of Plato" translated by Thomas Taylor, on Page 525, tells the reader about the firmament and the domes. Plato knew about the flat earth, but some interested party replaced it with the spherical Earth. They forgot to remove the references to Stars on the rotating dome. They do not co-inside with the Heliocentric stars of the rotating spherical Earth. Many interesting things about the mechanism are there, to be found. In most books of Aristotle, Plato and their good commentators (I.E. Proclus), the words, Inerratic Sphere will lead to more information about the Domes.

Number one: The aircraft pilot does not fly the aircraft touching the ground, as the figures imply. If the aircraft were flying at 30,000 feet, you would have to add that value to your radius of the earth. Since the radius used is incorrect, we use the mean radius of the Earth as 3,959 miles, and add it to 5.6818 miles (30,000 ft) we get 3,964.6818 miles radius to the aircraft.
Number two: 2 Pi x R = circumference, or 6.283 times 3,964.6818 miles, we get: 24,910.0957 miles circumference at the flying aircrafts altitude. Distance traveled= circumference/4= 6,227.5239 miles.
Try using these values in your calculations.