For the flat Earth people!

[fonzerrillii]

Here we go!!


We live on a sphere, that's what you guys say....



Not this....

But this....

I'm sure will you agree with that.


The earth is 24,901 miles in circumference.

This means the earth curves at 8" per mile.

So let's look at a clean sphere...no mountains, no obstructions, everything at sea-level.

According to this Earth Curve Calculator, , at a height of 6ft , the horizon will be 2.9995471525609774 miles away, or we'll just round up to 3 miles.

Based on a sphere-earth model, I also assume you would all agree.

This illustration is from the EC calculator site I just posted. The flaw with this illustration is that if h0 is a person and h1 is a building, the person is leaning towards the horizon looking downward while the building is also leaning in the opposite direction towards the horizon. Looks like this.....

h0 (the person) is leaning forward and looking downward (dashed line).

If gravity keeps you stuck to a sphere, then no matter where you stand on the sphere, you are on top of the sphere from your perspective. From whatever point you’re standing, the ground will curve downwards in any direction.

@blackras9 said:



Yes, using this logic and as illustrated above, h0 at 6ft would ALSO have to look downward to keep from looking into the stratosphere.

h0 = 6ft.

If you're 6ft tall looking straight ahead, you are indeed looking into the stratosphere as illustrated by the horizontal red line above.

As stated before, the earth curves at 8" per mile. This means that if the distance to the horizon is 3 miles and the earth curves at 8" per mile, the horizon would be 2ft below the h0. This is what the slanted, dashed line represents.


Next, lets take a look at things from the building's perspective......

Okay, so that's the Leaning Tower of Pisa.....And that building is 486 feet tall, based off the EC calculator.

Remember, if gravity keeps the building stuck to a sphere, then no matter where the building stands on the sphere, it is on top of the sphere from it's perspective. From whatever point on the sphere it's standing, the ground will curve downwards in any direction.

Likewise, if I straighten up the building and stand on the roof, the horizon will be 27 miles away. At 8" per mile of curvature, the horizon would be 18ft below the ground level of the building.

So I would use this hallway for my next point, especially in illustrating how the sun behaves, but I know y'all hate hallways.....

So I'll use railroad tracks.

This is what we actually see when looking to a horizon at 6ft tall.

As above so below, the lines converge to a vanishing point which SHOULD BE 3 miles away. The thickness of the atmosphere makes the mountains less visible, but the key is that the picture is not looking down at a horizon. The horizon is eye level.

As I've stated before, no matter how high you go,
the horizon stays at eye level.

At the h0 (height) of 35,000 ft on a commercial flight, according to the EC calculator the distance to the horizon is 229 miles. At 8" per mile of curvature, the horizon would be 35,152ft below the air plane and you would have to look down to see it because the higher you are on a round earth, the lower the horizon.

This is the math for the sphere model:

I do not yet have a formula to determine the distance to the horizon on a flat plane, because unlike the sphere model, there is no radius. So I'm working on that. It comes down to measuring it physically in my opinion, which you can do using railroad tracks in place that's really flat with no hills, valleys or mountains. (http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...by-florida-are-flatter-than-a-pancake/284348/) You have to measure the distance to the vanishing point at various heights to see how much the horizon extends, because it definitely does extend the higher you go.

But what I do believe I've proven,

is that the earth is definitely NOT a sphere, it is flat.

I'm going to supplement this presentation with a video.



Alright!

I'm gonna give y'all a quiz on Friday. Be prepared, study in groups.

http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?threads/for-the-flat-earth-people.929741/page-9#post-17374043

This didn't Answer.... ONE question that I asked.

What's on the other side of the Flat Earth?

How thick is the ice wall and why hasn't anyone seen what's on the other side?

How can we have tectonic plate movement on a flat earth?

How can we have molten lava on a flat Earth?

Does a flat Earth have a core?

_____________________________________________________________________



Since you like to Post videos and Pics...

I thought I'd let these kids explain Tectonic plates to you.. Because you continue to ignore the biggest problem to your theory. You don't even need to grasp your clipart math equations. You can literally go outside and look at a crack to prove tectonic movement. And as I've repeatedly said in the other thread.. YOU CAN NOT HAVE TECTONIC MOVEMENT ON A FLAT EARTH.



This Continental Drift song goes HARD!!!

 

[fonzerrillii]

For the Kids... or those with childlike minds.




and probably a repost... but I don't care. Neil.. laid down the hard truth.

 

[cashwhisperer]

This didn't Answer.... ONE question that I asked.

What's on the other side of the Flat Earth?

How thick is the ice wall and why hasn't anyone seen what's on the other side?

How can we have tectonic plate movement on a flat earth?

How can we have molten lava on a flat Earth?

Does a flat Earth have a core?

_____________________________________________________________________



Since you like to Post videos and Pics...

I thought I'd let these kids explain Tectonic plates to you.. Because you continue to ignore the biggest problem to your theory. You don't even need to grasp your clipart math equations. You can literally go outside and look at a crack to prove tectonic movement. And as I've repeatedly said in the other thread.. YOU CAN NOT HAVE TECTONIC MOVEMENT ON A FLAT EARTH.



This Continental Drift song goes HARD!!!

Right. NONE of you can refute the post. That's what I thought.

 

[fonzerrillii]

Right. NONE of you can refute the post. That's what I thought.

Again... All your Clip-Art math isn't necessary when the fact that the Earth is round can be proven through simple observational science.

This is a repost from the First 50 page Flat Earth Spectacular... but it continues to hold true.




How about your disprove Observational Science... First...

 

[cashwhisperer]

Again... All your Clip-Art math isn't necessary when the fact that the Earth is round can be proven through simple observational science.

This is a repost from the First 50 page Flat Earth Spectacular... but it continues to hold true.




How about your disprove Observational Science... First...

Disprove what I posted or stfu. Y'all need to go ahead and admit that you can't refute my thread. For a month now you niggas been dodging that one post.
Now YOU'RE posting youtube videos instead of disproving my "clip art" with simple, no , hardcore logic.

All your allies have run for the hills and got silent as a muthafucka after that one post. And the ONLY thing y'all have left is hurling insults and deflections. Y'all sound more like religious, low iq idiots than how you're trying to make me out to be, which I'm not.

The plain fact is that you can't have a horizon that goes upward to your eye-level on a ball earth with a circumference of 25k miles. It's mathematically impossible. YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THAT and I DARE YOU TO.

You niggas love Self-Science's lil math problems, but can't figure out this simple ass shit and want to call yourselves intelligent. Get THEE fuck outta here mane!

 

[roots69]

Disprove what I posted or stfu. Y'all need to go ahead and admit that you can't refute my thread. For a month now you niggas been dodging that one post.
Now YOU'RE posting youtube videos instead of disproving my "clip art" with simple, no , hardcore logic.

All your allies have run for the hills and got silent as a muthafucka after that one post. And the ONLY thing y'all have left is hurling insults and deflections. Y'all sound more like religious, low iq idiots than how you're trying to make me out to be, which I'm not.

The plain fact is that you can't have a horizon that goes upward to your eye-level on a ball earth with a circumference of 25k miles. It's mathematically impossible. YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THAT and I DARE YOU TO.

You niggas love Self-Science's lil math problems, but can't figure out this simple ass shit and want to call yourselves intelligent. Get THEE fuck outta here mane!

Im with ya, bro.. I got into the FE by accident. Its very interesting... The question we all need to ask is, What are they hiding down in Antartica?? Come on yall, question everything!!!

 

[fonzerrillii]

Disprove what I posted or stfu. Y'all need to go ahead and admit that you can't refute my thread. For a month now you niggas been dodging that one post.
Now YOU'RE posting youtube videos instead of disproving my "clip art" with simple, no , hardcore logic.

All your allies have run for the hills and got silent as a muthafucka after that one post. And the ONLY thing y'all have left is hurling insults and deflections. Y'all sound more like religious, low iq idiots than how you're trying to make me out to be, which I'm not.

The plain fact is that you can't have a horizon that goes upward to your eye-level on a ball earth with a circumference of 25k miles. It's mathematically impossible. YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THAT and I DARE YOU TO.

You niggas love Self-Science's lil math problems, but can't figure out this simple ass shit and want to call yourselves intelligent. Get THEE fuck outta here mane!

Here is your problem....

What's the point of disproving your Theory again? We straight went through almost the exact same shit last year. Lets say I do take the time and break down your theory. You are just going to post some crazy youtube video talking about flying turtles and Earth Dome.


So I'm just going to go along with you and Say...


ASSUMING THE EARTH IS FLAT.....


What's on the other side of the Flat Earth?

How thick is the ice wall and why hasn't anyone seen what's on the other side?

How can we have tectonic plate movement on a flat earth?

How can we have molten lava on a flat Earth?

Does a flat Earth have a core?

How is our Atmosphere maintained on a Flat Earth?

If we don't have Tectonic Plates movement? Why do we have Earthquakes?

Why is the Moon obviously round, but the Earth is not?

____________________________________________________________________

Now I'm looking at it from your side...

This should be Easy.. Surely you guys have mathematical equations to answer these simple questions?

 

[fonzerrillii]

I didn't want to just break these Flat Earthers hearts. So I've been holding on to this information... but Fuck it. I'm done...



It continues to boggle my mind why people think Antarctica is this top secret Alien base or off Limits. That because there is a treaty.. people can't travel to the center of Antarctica.

If it was so top secret, why do you have Travel Adventures to Antarctica.

You guys can literally (not figuratively) LITERALLY.. Call these companies up right now and take a trip there yourself.

Here is an Example...

https://www.naturalworldsafaris.com/polar-regions/antarctica/attractions

OH AND THIS WILL BLOW THE TOP OFF OF YOUR FLAT MIND...

There is a Company... That Travels to the FUCKING SOUTH POLE... Every FUCKING YEAR...

Why must we continue to do this Man.. Give it up.


Here is their Website... If you have the Cheese.. (49,000k) You can take a Trip to the South Pole by land... RIGHT NOW.

You can even spend the night there... Have Fun. See some pigeons.

https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/south-pole-flights/






We aren't talking about Fly Overs. We are talking about physically setting foot on the South Pole...

There is no Ice Wall dude.... Do any of these video show and Ice Wall.


Dispute these Facts...

 

[cashwhisperer]

I didn't want to just break these Flat Earthers hearts. So I've been holding on to this information... but Fuck it. I'm done...



It continues to boggle my mind why people think Antarctica is this top secret Alien base or off Limits. That because there is a treaty.. people can't travel to the center of Antarctica.

If it was so top secret, why do you have Travel Adventures to Antarctica.

You guys can literally (not figuratively) LITERALLY.. Call these companies up right now and take a trip there yourself.

Here is an Example...

https://www.naturalworldsafaris.com/polar-regions/antarctica/attractions

OH AND THIS WILL BLOW THE TOP OFF OF YOUR FLAT MIND...

There is a Company... That Travels to the FUCKING SOUTH POLE... Every FUCKING YEAR...

Why must we continue to do this Man.. Give it up.


Here is their Website... If you have the Cheese.. (49,000k) You can take a Trip to the South Pole by land... RIGHT NOW.

You can even spend the night there... Have Fun. See some pigeons.

https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/south-pole-flights/






We aren't talking about Fly Overs. We are talking about physically setting foot on the South Pole...

There is no Ice Wall dude.... Do any of these video show and Ice Wall.


Dispute these Facts...

Are you serious??? Some cacs show you some snow and a flag planted and I'm supposed to believe that's the south pole?? I already proved their NASA footage was just bullshit photos of rural New Zealand.

 

[cashwhisperer]

Here is your problem....

What's the point of disproving your Theory again? We straight went through almost the exact same shit last year. Lets say I do take the time and break down your theory. You are just going to post some crazy youtube video talking about flying turtles and Earth Dome.


So I'm just going to go along with you and Say...


ASSUMING THE EARTH IS FLAT.....


What's on the other side of the Flat Earth?

How thick is the ice wall and why hasn't anyone seen what's on the other side?

How can we have tectonic plate movement on a flat earth?

How can we have molten lava on a flat Earth?

Does a flat Earth have a core?

How is our Atmosphere maintained on a Flat Earth?

If we don't have Tectonic Plates movement? Why do we have Earthquakes?

Why is the Moon obviously round, but the Earth is not?

____________________________________________________________________

Now I'm looking at it from your side...

This should be Easy.. Surely you guys have mathematical equations to answer these simple questions?

You can't disprove my post. Just what I thought. A shitload of deflections to change the subject rather than to focus on ONE irrefutable proof that you KNOW you can't disprove.

 

[fonzerrillii]

Are you serious??? Some cacs show you some snow and a flag planted and I'm supposed to believe that's the south pole?? I already proved their NASA footage was just bullshit photos of rural New Zealand.

No are you serious???


Do you really want to talk about CACs showing you shit?

See below

They've already launched rockets/weather balloons and debunked it.

google "flat earth homemade rocket"

on the why? Look up Admiral Byrd interview where he talks about there being more continents beyond Antarctica rich with more resources than the world would ever need.

Some say it's the fact that we might live in a world of infinite resources rather than a finite one which we are lead to believe.
Some say it's to hide God...you know...Satanic biblical stuff....the Bible says the Earth is Flat...and the ancient Kemet, Sumeria, Hindus...

I'm not sure about the "why". But check this out...shit is crazy if you just consider it could be true.

You have a CAC making you believe that there are continents beyond Antarctica rich with resources.

 

[fonzerrillii]

You can't disprove my post. Just what I thought. A shitload of deflections to change the subject rather than to focus on ONE irrefutable proof that you KNOW you can't disprove.

I'm assuming that your theory is correct.. so let's move on. If your theory is correct then.. please answer my questions.

this is your theory.. Support it by answering questions that directly relate to its existence.


You can't have a flat Earth without also having explanations for these questions. Should be easy.

 

[RoadRage]

Fossils are the biggest scam in the world

Y'all nighas think the Stonehenge was man made?

Same with the pryamids

 

[cashwhisperer]

What's on the other side of the Flat Earth?

I don't know, no one does. The ancients say water is below us. I wouldn't be surprised if they were correct.

How thick is the ice wall and why hasn't anyone seen what's on the other side?

I already told you what an ice wall was vs. the firmament. I don't know how thick the firmament is, I just have reason to believe it's there.

How can we have tectonic plate movement on a flat earth? How can we have molten lava on a flat Earth?

Plate tectonics is a theory, not a fact, look it up. Molten lava isn't necessarily a symptom of a molten core earth. That's just what you've been trained to believe.

Does a flat Earth have a core?

Probably not. Nobody has been more than 12km (8 miles) deep into the earth, and considering that supposed distance to the core is 8,000 miles, the idea of a core is still theoretical itself.

How is our Atmosphere maintained on a Flat Earth?

Electromagnetism I believe.

If we don't have Tectonic Plates movement? Why do we have Earthquakes?

I'm not sure, I only have theories for that at this point.

Why is the Moon obviously round, but the Earth is not?

I'm not convinced the moon is a sphere. Not saying it isn't, but not convinced it is. One thing's for sure, it doesn't spin on an axis like they claim it does and nobody's ever seen the dark side of the moon. And please don't post any bullshit Chinese cgi claiming to be the other side of the Moon.

......y'all some gullible niggas mane. The ancestors mad. Cacs built the Matrix on y'all ass and you steady holding onto it for dear life. Can't let the steak go.

 

[cashwhisperer]

 

[4 Dimensional]

Maybe you've answered this, but does this "flat earth" rotate/spin?

 

[cashwhisperer]

Maybe you've answered this, but does this "flat earth" rotate/spin?

No.

 

[4 Dimensional]

No.

Ok. Good deal.

I shall return, my good friend.

 

[M3MD]

Y'all Flat Earthers are pure comedy

 

[fonzerrillii]

What's on the other side of the Flat Earth?

I don't know, no one does. The ancients say water is below us. I wouldn't be surprised if they were correct.

--- So the Flat Earth is that has water between its land masses... is just one big land mass that is also floating on Water? Or this Water is floating upside down on the other side of the Flat Earth? Are there Fish in this Water?

How thick is the ice wall and why hasn't anyone seen what's on the other side?

I already told you what an ice wall was vs. the firmament. I don't know how thick the firmament is, I just have reason to believe it's there.

-- How far into Antarctica must one go to physically touch this firmament? Where does it begin? Can one climb to the top of this firmament? Is it affected by weather patterns? Can it melt? Antarctica has earthquakes? Are we at risk of this firmament cracking? If it cracks what happens?

How can we have tectonic plate movement on a flat earth? How can we have molten lava on a flat Earth?

Plate tectonics is a theory, not a fact, look it up. Molten lava isn't necessarily a symptom of a molten core earth. That's just what you've been trained to believe.

--- Sadly tectonic plate movement is a fact. I can't even pretend to joke on this one. Even if we Ignore the fact that tectonic movement causes earthquakes and is the only thing that can create a fault line, there is no other explanation why you have the same types of flora and fauna on continents that are separated by thousands of miles of oceans.

I've also throughly explained in the previous thread how molten lava is a symptom of a earths core.

Does a flat Earth have a core?

Probably not. Nobody has been more than 12km (8 miles) deep into the earth, and considering that supposed distance to the core is 8,000 miles, the idea of a core is still theoretical itself.

--- Assuming we don't have a core. Why causes magma? How is the pressure generated to cause natural oil? Why does it get hotter the deeper you go into the earth?

How is our Atmosphere maintained on a Flat Earth?

Electromagnetism I believe.

--- I'm just not on this one... Next

If we don't have Tectonic Plates movement? Why do we have Earthquakes?

I'm not sure, I only have theories for that at this point.

--- let's hear these theories.

Why is the Moon obviously round, but the Earth is not?

I'm not convinced the moon is a sphere. Not saying it isn't, but not convinced it is. One thing's for sure, it doesn't spin on an axis like they claim it does and nobody's ever seen the dark side of the moon. And please don't post any bullshit Chinese cgi claiming to be the other side of the Moon.

--- Moon is a sphere. Just go outside everyday and take picture of it everyday... you will notice that the surface changes. You even need a telescope to see that on clear nights. That's just observational facts.

......y'all some gullible niggas mane. The ancestors mad. Cacs built the Matrix on y'all ass and you steady holding onto it for dear life. Can't let the steak go.

--- Now this is the biggest question. Who are these ancestors and ancients that you keep talking about?

 

[cashwhisperer]

What's on the other side of the Flat Earth?

I don't know, no one does. The ancients say water is below us. I wouldn't be surprised if they were correct.

--- So the Flat Earth is that has water between its land masses... is just one big land mass that is also floating on Water? Or this Water is floating upside down on the other side of the Flat Earth? Are there Fish in this Water?

How thick is the ice wall and why hasn't anyone seen what's on the other side?

I already told you what an ice wall was vs. the firmament. I don't know how thick the firmament is, I just have reason to believe it's there.

-- How far into Antarctica must one go to physically touch this firmament? Where does it begin? Can one climb to the top of this firmament? Is it affected by weather patterns? Can it melt? Antarctica has earthquakes? Are we at risk of this firmament cracking? If it cracks what happens?

How can we have tectonic plate movement on a flat earth? How can we have molten lava on a flat Earth?

Plate tectonics is a theory, not a fact, look it up. Molten lava isn't necessarily a symptom of a molten core earth. That's just what you've been trained to believe.

--- Sadly tectonic plate movement is a fact. I can't even pretend to joke on this one. Even if we Ignore the fact that tectonic movement causes earthquakes and is the only thing that can create a fault line, there is no other explanation why you have the same types of flora and fauna on continents that are separated by thousands of miles of oceans.

I've also throughly explained in the previous thread how molten lava is a symptom of a earths core.

Does a flat Earth have a core?

Probably not. Nobody has been more than 12km (8 miles) deep into the earth, and considering that supposed distance to the core is 8,000 miles, the idea of a core is still theoretical itself.

--- Assuming we don't have a core. Why causes magma? How is the pressure generated to cause natural oil? Why does it get hotter the deeper you go into the earth?

How is our Atmosphere maintained on a Flat Earth?

Electromagnetism I believe.

--- I'm just not on this one... Next

If we don't have Tectonic Plates movement? Why do we have Earthquakes?

I'm not sure, I only have theories for that at this point.

--- let's hear these theories.

Why is the Moon obviously round, but the Earth is not?

I'm not convinced the moon is a sphere. Not saying it isn't, but not convinced it is. One thing's for sure, it doesn't spin on an axis like they claim it does and nobody's ever seen the dark side of the moon. And please don't post any bullshit Chinese cgi claiming to be the other side of the Moon.

--- Moon is a sphere. Just go outside everyday and take picture of it everyday... you will notice that the surface changes. You even need a telescope to see that on clear nights. That's just observational facts.

......y'all some gullible niggas mane. The ancestors mad. Cacs built the Matrix on y'all ass and you steady holding onto it for dear life. Can't let the steak go.

--- Now this is the biggest question. Who are these ancestors and ancients that you keep talking about?

ALL that yappin bruh, look man...

The plain fact is that you can't have a horizon that goes upward to your eye-level on a ball earth with a circumference of 25k miles. It's mathematically impossible. YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THAT and I DARE YOU TO.

I'm waiting...

I'm waiting.....






I'm muthafuckkin waiting.....

 

[RoadRage]

Y'all Flat Earthers are pure comedy

 

[LordSinister]

Cuzz still can't tell me why you can't get a full picture of Venus or Mercury from Earth but you can see mars, Saturn and Jupiter ass full?

You still can't explain why I saw an eclipse from Africa that wasn't visible in Europe at the same time. Pathetic

 

[RoadRage]

What I find fascinating about this "flat earth" theory is its' inability to explain motion within the atmosphere.

In a spherical model I will explain my argument and I will pose questions for you.

You say the earth does not rotate, so how do you explain the motion of wind within the atmosphere? How is wind created in your theory.

So let me consider you answer of the earth not rotating. Wind is created because the difference of temperature between two positions. If you do not think that is true then please debut. Continuing; think of the slope formula: slope=m=(y2-y1/x2-x1). Slope explains direction and steepness of a line or gradient. Since the earth has shape, we can mathematically measure or approximate atmospheric processes using the rectangular Cartesian coordinate system of x,y, and z that explains dimensions. Agree? In this case, let's look at surface temperature only. Going back to the creation of wind, considering no rotation of the earth, the horizontal (x-direction) gradient of temperature can be written as m=(t2-t1/x2-x1). Now we have run into a problem, what causes the wind to move? You claim no rotation, so what force is cause the wind to move? Is it this?

Of course not. To simply, put cold air is heavier than warm air, so when warm hair is replaced with cooler air, it causes wind to blow. Does this work on a flat earth model? To your benefit, it does! But I'm, not finished .

The slope (gradient) example for temperature just horizontally (x-direction). What about the other directions, y and z? How do we express total wind? By adding all the slopes together for all directions? Yes, you're right. Good job. Since wind can change over time (do you agree), we can express the total rate of change of wind caused by temperature using the total derivative: where T is temperature, t is time.

So now we have a solid equation for wind that works for the flat earth model. You really can't deny that temperature changes as you rise into the atmosphere. This change in temperature also changes air pressure. Ya'll do believe in air pressure right? So basically the change in temperature also changes the air pressure and since pressure can be measured as well, we can express this using the ideal gas law:

Here is how the gas constant was derived (gas constant), with yo' doubtful ass.

So since we can layer the atmosphere with pressure, we can get the averaged layer temperature between two pressure levels:

So now we can get a mathematical average of temperature and pressure up in the atmosphere. How do we measure temperature of the atmosphere? With balloons with sensors (weather balloons). All this math and we haven't even seen a satellite picture of anything! By the way, I'm still working my way of disputing your claim that the earth doesn't rotate.

So we are able to diagram the pressure levels. Here is a conceptual model and a figure to that calculates the levels of that may not be so easy for you to read.

So now we have established the temperature layers, the pressure levels, the math on how it is derived we can get to WHY wind moves are different layers and there is ONLY one reason why.

The conservation law for momentum (Newton’s second law of motion) relates the rate of change of the absolute momentum following the motion (as well as temperature) in an inertial reference frame to the sum of the forces acting on the fluid (or air). For most applications in meteorology it is desirable to refer the motion to a reference frame rotating with the earth. In other words, the force that causes wind to move throughout the upper layers of the atmosphere is the earth rotating. Now here is the math behind it.

The Coriolis parameter is defined as:
Twice the component of the earth's angular velocity about the local vertical, 2Ω sinφ, where Ω is the angular speed of the earth and φ is the latitude.

Since the earth is in rigid rotation, the Coriolis parameter is equal to the component of the earth's vorticity about the local vertical. If the Coriolis parameter is denoted by f and the speed of a horizontally moving fluid parcel by V, then fV is the magnitude of the horizontal Coriolis force per unit mass on the parcel.

So my question to you. All this shit to ask this fucking simple as question. I showed you the math and science as clear as I could to dispute your claim that the earth does not rotate when in fact it does based on the math alone.

How does the wind move throughout the pressure layers in a flat earth system? Without rotation of the earth, how does wind move? What causes it to move? And your math has to be able to dispute my claims. Good luck, sir.

Forget all that nerdy mombo jumbo noise about conservation law for momentum and the Corioli--what ever you call it.. All I know is that wind comes from butterfly wings, didn't your nerdy books ever tell you about the butterfly effect? I'm sure its somewhere in the bible, when my ADD dies down, I am going to look it up just to show the real deal...

 

[4 Dimensional]

Forget all that nerdy mombo jumbo noise about conservation law for momentum and the Corioli--what ever you call it.. All I know is that wind comes from butterfly wings, didn't your nerdy books ever tell you about the butterfly effect? I'm sure its somewhere in the bible, when my ADD dies down, I am going to look it up just to show the real deal...

I feel stupid for even using the time to respond that way.

What's the point with these guys.

 

[cashwhisperer]

What I find fascinating about this "flat earth" theory is its' inability to explain motion within the atmosphere.

In a spherical model I will explain my argument and I will pose questions for you.

You say the earth does not rotate, so how do you explain the motion of wind within the atmosphere? How is wind created in your theory.

So let me consider you answer of the earth not rotating. Wind is created because the difference of temperature between two positions. If you do not think that is true then please debut. Continuing; think of the slope formula: slope=m=(y2-y1/x2-x1). Slope explains direction and steepness of a line or gradient. Since the earth has shape, we can mathematically measure or approximate atmospheric processes using the rectangular Cartesian coordinate system of x,y, and z that explains dimensions. Agree? In this case, let's look at surface temperature only. Going back to the creation of wind, considering no rotation of the earth, the horizontal (x-direction) gradient of temperature can be written as m=(t2-t1/x2-x1). Now we have run into a problem, what causes the wind to move? You claim no rotation, so what force is cause the wind to move? Is it this?

Of course not. To simply, put cold air is heavier than warm air, so when warm hair is replaced with cooler air, it causes wind to blow. Does this work on a flat earth model? To your benefit, it does! But I'm, not finished .

The slope (gradient) example for temperature just horizontally (x-direction). What about the other directions, y and z? How do we express total wind? By adding all the slopes together for all directions? Yes, you're right. Good job. Since wind can change over time (do you agree), we can express the total rate of change of wind caused by temperature using the total derivative: where T is temperature, t is time.

So now we have a solid equation for wind that works for the flat earth model. You really can't deny that temperature changes as you rise into the atmosphere. This change in temperature also changes air pressure. Ya'll do believe in air pressure right? So basically the change in temperature also changes the air pressure and since pressure can be measured as well, we can express this using the ideal gas law:

Here is how the gas constant was derived (gas constant), with yo' doubtful ass.

So since we can layer the atmosphere with pressure, we can get the averaged layer temperature between two pressure levels:

So now we can get a mathematical average of temperature and pressure up in the atmosphere. How do we measure temperature of the atmosphere? With balloons with sensors (weather balloons). All this math and we haven't even seen a satellite picture of anything! By the way, I'm still working my way of disputing your claim that the earth doesn't rotate.

So we are able to diagram the pressure levels. Here is a conceptual model and a figure to that calculates the levels of that may not be so easy for you to read.

So now we have established the temperature layers, the pressure levels, the math on how it is derived we can get to WHY wind moves are different layers and there is ONLY one reason why.

The conservation law for momentum (Newton’s second law of motion) relates the rate of change of the absolute momentum following the motion (as well as temperature) in an inertial reference frame to the sum of the forces acting on the fluid (or air). For most applications in meteorology it is desirable to refer the motion to a reference frame rotating with the earth. In other words, the force that causes wind to move throughout the upper layers of the atmosphere is the earth rotating. Now here is the math behind it.

The Coriolis parameter is defined as:
Twice the component of the earth's angular velocity about the local vertical, 2Ω sinφ, where Ω is the angular speed of the earth and φ is the latitude.

Since the earth is in rigid rotation, the Coriolis parameter is equal to the component of the earth's vorticity about the local vertical. If the Coriolis parameter is denoted by f and the speed of a horizontally moving fluid parcel by V, then fV is the magnitude of the horizontal Coriolis force per unit mass on the parcel.

So my question to you. All this shit to ask this fucking simple as question. I showed you the math and science as clear as I could to dispute your claim that the earth does not rotate when in fact it does based on the math alone.

How does the wind move throughout the pressure layers in a flat earth system? Without rotation of the earth, how does wind move? What causes it to move? And your math has to be able to dispute my claims. Good luck, sir.

The plain fact is that you can't have a horizon that goes upward to your eye-level on a ball earth with a circumference of 25k miles. It's mathematically impossible. YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THAT and I DARE YOU TO.

I'm waiting...

I'm waiting.....






I'm muthafuckkin waiting.....

 

[RoadRage]

I feel stupid for even using the time to respond that way.

What's the point with these guys.

Dude, the flat earthers literally believe in a miniaturized sun a few hundred miles over the earth hovering around the in circles..
Do you really think a mind that is capable of believing that dumb ass shit, is going to sit down and attempt to understand that?
When I sarcastically joked about the butterfly effect, how much you wanna bet the flat heads were like, "Yeah you tell em Rage!! Saved me from reading all that bullshit! ".

But on the real keep posting, don't let them stop you, because guys like me who take time to read the stuff you post, are always find something new to learn from the gems you be dropping!

 

[cashwhisperer]

THIS CANNOT BE DEBUNKED. YOU NIGGAS ARE SQUIRMING TO DEFLECT AND FIND ANYTHING YOU CAN GRASP ONTO INSTEAD OF FACING THIS SIMPLE FACT.



We live on a sphere, that's what you guys say....



Not this....

But this....

I'm sure will you agree with that.


The earth is 24,901 miles in circumference.

This means the earth curves at 8" per mile.

So let's look at a clean sphere...no mountains, no obstructions, everything at sea-level.

According to this Earth Curve Calculator,

https:// dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

, at a height of 6ft , the horizon will be 2.9995471525609774 miles away, or we'll just round up to 3 miles.

Based on a sphere-earth model, I also assume you would all agree.

This illustration is from the EC calculator site I just posted. The flaw with this illustration is that if h0 is a person and h1 is a building, the person is leaning towards the horizon looking downward while the building is also leaning in the opposite direction towards the horizon. Looks like this.....

h0 (the person) is leaning forward and looking downward (dashed line).

If gravity keeps you stuck to a sphere, then no matter where you stand on the sphere, you are on top of the sphere from your perspective. From whatever point you’re standing, the ground will curve downwards in any direction.

@blackras9 said:

I don't know if this point was made but the sheer idiocy of this movement can be debunked with one uncomplicated fact.
Pilots who travel across the globe have to descend to keep from flying into the stratosphere.

Yes, using this logic and as illustrated above, h0 at 6ft would ALSO have to look downward to keep from looking into the stratosphere.

h0 = 6ft.

If you're 6ft tall looking straight ahead, you are indeed looking into the stratosphere as illustrated by the horizontal red line above.

As stated before, the earth curves at 8" per mile. This means that if the distance to the horizon is 3 miles and the earth curves at 8" per mile, the horizon would be 2ft below the h0. This is what the slanted, dashed line represents.


Next, lets take a look at things from the building's perspective......

Okay, so that's the Leaning Tower of Pisa.....And that building is 486 feet tall, based off the EC calculator.

Remember, if gravity keeps the building stuck to a sphere, then no matter where the building stands on the sphere, it is on top of the sphere from it's perspective. From whatever point on the sphere it's standing, the ground will curve downwards in any direction.

Likewise, if I straighten up the building and stand on the roof, the horizon will be 27 miles away. At 8" per mile of curvature, the horizon would be 18ft below the ground level of the building.

So I would use this hallway for my next point, especially in illustrating how the sun behaves, but I know y'all hate hallways.....

So I'll use railroad tracks.

This is what we actually see when looking to a horizon at 6ft tall.

As above so below, the lines converge to a vanishing point which SHOULD BE 3 miles away. The thickness of the atmosphere makes the mountains less visible, but the key is that the picture is not looking down at a horizon. The horizon is eye level.

As I've stated before, no matter how high you go,
the horizon stays at eye level.

At the h0 (height) of 35,000 ft on a commercial flight, according to the EC calculator the distance to the horizon is 229 miles. At 8" per mile of curvature, the horizon would be 35,152ft below the air plane and you would have to look down to see it because the higher you are on a round earth, the lower the horizon.

This is the math for the sphere model:

I do not yet have a formula to determine the distance to the horizon on a flat plane, because unlike the sphere model, there is no radius. So I'm working on that. It comes down to measuring it physically in my opinion, which you can do using railroad tracks in place that's really flat with no hills, valleys or mountains. (http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...by-florida-are-flatter-than-a-pancake/284348/) You have to measure the distance to the vanishing point at various heights to see how much the horizon extends, because it definitely does extend the higher you go.

But what I do believe I've proven,

is that the earth is definitely NOT a sphere, it is flat.

I'm going to supplement this presentation with a video.




GAME OVER...

 

[4 Dimensional]

The plain fact is that you can't have a horizon that goes upward to your eye-level on a ball earth with a circumference of 25k miles. It's mathematically impossible. YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THAT and I DARE YOU TO.

I'm waiting...

I'm waiting.....






I'm muthafuckkin waiting.....

The plain fact is that you can't have a horizon that goes upward to your eye-level on a ball earth with a circumference of 25k miles. It's mathematically impossible. YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THAT and I DARE YOU TO.

I'm waiting...

I'm waiting.....






I'm muthafuckkin waiting.....

I'm not even talking about a horizon dude, are you serious?

I'm talking about what it happening on earth. The physical natural aspects of motion on earth. The physical process that happens on earth. The basic fuckin motion of wind and you want to know about a horizon. Ok so what. Say if what you IS true. Because if you ass would have read what I said, half of my explanation CONSIDERED the flat earth model. That's how I know you didn't read shit.

You're little school grade claim of a horizon CAN be considered. But you can't explain how wind moves.

 

[SamSneed]

No.

What's under it?

 

[cashwhisperer]

I'm not even talking about a horizon dude, are you serious?

I'm talking about what it happening on earth. The physical natural aspects of motion on earth. The physical process that happens on earth. The basic fuckin motion of wind and you want to know about a horizon. Ok so what. Say if what you IS true. Because if you ass would have read what I said, half of my explanation CONSIDERED the flat earth model. That's how I know you didn't read shit.

You're little school grade claim of a horizon CAN be considered. But you can't explain how wind moves.

If it's so grade school, why can't you just shut it down if it's so simple and easy to debunk? You're supposed to be smart right? With all your math mental twisters, this shit is EASY.

I can explain wind. I'm not gonna though until y'all acknowledge and debunk my post.

We've gone through all this shit before, but on this ONE THING, you niggas CANNOT say shit.

 

[cashwhisperer]

What's under it?

I'm not sure. I don't know for sure but I have reason to believe it's something like this.

 

[SamSneed]

That's shell oil?

So there's water above the sky? So that's how it rains

@Selfscience you got sum splainin to do!

Ima go see god y'all, it's just past the great ocean sky.

Ima need a hybrid rocketsub.

 

[cashwhisperer]

What I find fascinating about this "flat earth" theory is its' inability to explain motion within the atmosphere.

In a spherical model I will explain my argument and I will pose questions for you.

You say the earth does not rotate, so how do you explain the motion of wind within the atmosphere? How is wind created in your theory.

So let me consider you answer of the earth not rotating. Wind is created because the difference of temperature between two positions. If you do not think that is true then please debut. Continuing; think of the slope formula: slope=m=(y2-y1/x2-x1). Slope explains direction and steepness of a line or gradient. Since the earth has shape, we can mathematically measure or approximate atmospheric processes using the rectangular Cartesian coordinate system of x,y, and z that explains dimensions. Agree? In this case, let's look at surface temperature only. Going back to the creation of wind, considering no rotation of the earth, the horizontal (x-direction) gradient of temperature can be written as m=(t2-t1/x2-x1). Now we have run into a problem, what causes the wind to move? You claim no rotation, so what force is cause the wind to move? Is it this?

Of course not. To simply, put cold air is heavier than warm air, so when warm hair is replaced with cooler air, it causes wind to blow. Does this work on a flat earth model? To your benefit, it does! But I'm, not finished .

The slope (gradient) example for temperature just horizontally (x-direction). What about the other directions, y and z? How do we express total wind? By adding all the slopes together for all directions? Yes, you're right. Good job. Since wind can change over time (do you agree), we can express the total rate of change of wind caused by temperature using the total derivative: where T is temperature, t is time.

So now we have a solid equation for wind that works for the flat earth model. You really can't deny that temperature changes as you rise into the atmosphere. This change in temperature also changes air pressure. Ya'll do believe in air pressure right? So basically the change in temperature also changes the air pressure and since pressure can be measured as well, we can express this using the ideal gas law:

Here is how the gas constant was derived (gas constant), with yo' doubtful ass.

So since we can layer the atmosphere with pressure, we can get the averaged layer temperature between two pressure levels:

So now we can get a mathematical average of temperature and pressure up in the atmosphere. How do we measure temperature of the atmosphere? With balloons with sensors (weather balloons). All this math and we haven't even seen a satellite picture of anything! By the way, I'm still working my way of disputing your claim that the earth doesn't rotate.

So we are able to diagram the pressure levels. Here is a conceptual model and a figure to that calculates the levels of that may not be so easy for you to read.

So now we have established the temperature layers, the pressure levels, the math on how it is derived we can get to WHY wind moves are different layers and there is ONLY one reason why.

The conservation law for momentum (Newton’s second law of motion) relates the rate of change of the absolute momentum following the motion (as well as temperature) in an inertial reference frame to the sum of the forces acting on the fluid (or air). For most applications in meteorology it is desirable to refer the motion to a reference frame rotating with the earth. In other words, the force that causes wind to move throughout the upper layers of the atmosphere is the earth rotating. Now here is the math behind it.

The Coriolis parameter is defined as:
Twice the component of the earth's angular velocity about the local vertical, 2Ω sinφ, where Ω is the angular speed of the earth and φ is the latitude.

Since the earth is in rigid rotation, the Coriolis parameter is equal to the component of the earth's vorticity about the local vertical. If the Coriolis parameter is denoted by f and the speed of a horizontally moving fluid parcel by V, then fV is the magnitude of the horizontal Coriolis force per unit mass on the parcel.

So my question to you. All this shit to ask this fucking simple as question. I showed you the math and science as clear as I could to dispute your claim that the earth does not rotate when in fact it does based on the math alone.

How does the wind move throughout the pressure layers in a flat earth system? Without rotation of the earth, how does wind move? What causes it to move? And your math has to be able to dispute my claims. Good luck, sir.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/azimuthal_equidistant

 

[4 Dimensional]

If it's so grade school, why can't you just shut it down if it's so simple and easy to debunk? You're supposed to be smart right? With all your math mental twisters, this shit is EASY.

I can explain wind. I'm not gonna though until y'all acknowledge and debunk my post.

We've gone through all this shit before, but on this ONE THING, you niggas CANNOT say shit.

I acknowledged your post by saying, let's assume you're right about the horizon. The fuck that going to do with the motion of wind?

There is nothing to debunk your post about. The horizon is independent of how wind moves. It does not matter. I'm saying, let's assume what your say about the horizon is true, so what? How does it effect the movement of wind if this flat earth does not rotate?