Search results

I'll try to fix it in the morning. Another thing I messed up was the metric system. I said millimeters and should have said centimeters. The average slope of the centrifugal bulge of the Earth is 1.34 centimeters per meter. That's still not very much but being off by a factor of ten is a...

Dave, Why are the two celestial poles? One for the north... And a different one for the south... If the Earth is flat, with the stars rotating above the stationary Earth, how can there be two celestial poles and why can't you see Polaris from Chile?

Dave, this sort of argument bothers me greatly. This is flat out dishonesty. I know that you're doing the whole devil's advocate thing but some arguments just aren't even worth putting out there. Up and down are relative terms. That means that up might mean an entire difference thing in one...

Yes, I realize that. In fact, that's why I said what I said in that post. Okay, so let's think this through... The centrifugal force, at no point, is even close to fully counteracting the force of gravity. At best, it modifies its strength and direction. Centrifugal force is always at 90° to...

This is not so.

I don't even think that you're thinking this through as you're saying it. If there is a flat plane then there would be nothing for the buildings to disappear behind. They would just sit directly on the horizon and get smaller and smaller with distance. There is no way that the bottom of the...

Except that they do. Watch the video I posted. It seriously blows everything you've said on this thread about the horizon to bits.

No, it isn't, Dave! I cannot fathom what in the world you're even talking about! First of all, direction is relative - always. Up, on the Earth's surface is away from the center of the globe. Down is the opposite. If someone is on a hill or mountain and I am at the base of that mountain then...

Let's just say that I don't buy it. Maybe it's true but I doubt it. The centrifugal force is just not big enough. Gravity vs. Centrifugal Force

Sorry JR, I'm with Dave on this point. The Mississippi River does not run uphill in the way you're suggesting. The centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation is only something like .03% of the force of gravity. Not nearly enough to cause the effect you are suggesting. The overall course...

Dave, If the Earth is flat, why isn't the Chicago skyline visible from across Lake Michigan all the time? It's plenty big enough and plenty tall enough to remain visible for hundreds of miles across a flat earth, but most of the time (nearly all of the time) it isn't visible at all.

The video linked to in my last post gives my proposed experiment new life! Now I just have to figure out how to pay for the equipment I'd need to pull it off. I'll also have to figure out how to convince someone to help me with it without making myself sound like a complete lunatic! :kookoo:

I found another video the debunks the flat earth theory. It's the best one I've seen yet when it comes to just really great, straightforward arguments as well as excellent production quality. This video is the first in a series of videos on the subject but this one focuses on the horizon and...

This argument has already been directly refuted. Objects do not simply get so far away that they can no longer be seen because they've shrunk into the distance. They disappear from the bottom up over the horizon just as you'd expect them to do if the world was a sphere. If the world were flat...

This is the beginning of an argument that is not rational. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of articles, youtube videos and other sources that one can find in seconds with a google search that directly addresses the Van Allen Belts (there's more than one) but you won't believe any of them...

I already said that everyone knows the river flow downhill, GENERALLY SPEAKING. But, if you know the name of a river that has no portion of it that ever flows up and over a rock or small hill or other uphill portion of any length of time or distance at all, give me the name of it. (Such a river...

I brought up why boats float because you brought up density and buoyancy. A buoy float, not because of the density of the stuff it's made of but because it displaces a sufficient weight of water. There is NO buoyancy without gravity. You were accepting the concept of buoyancy while rejecting...

Well, a lot of them really are crazy but that certainly isn't the point I was trying to make. Everyone knows that, generally speaking, rivers flow downhill. Everyone also knows that rivers occasionally encounter a section along their path that is somewhat uphill and that it flows over it anyway...

Gravity in action! I wonder how the flat-earth "density and buoyancy" folks explain how siphons work? The water in the tank is the same density as the water in the siphon and yet it flows up hill! One might be tempted to suggest that they work because of pressure differentials but that's only...

Up to this point, I'm with you 100%. There is no question that the thrust of what you said here is true. Atheistic science turns to gravity to explain all kinds of things that I've never thought made any sense whatsoever. They have indeed turned gravity into a sort of god. They complain that we...