Is the Earth Flat?

[The Liturgist]

Heliocentrism is obviously false.

On that we agree, because the sun orbits a supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way which in turn is in a gravitational motion with other galaxies in the Local Group Cluster, notably Andromeda which in a few billion years will merge with our galaxy.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do you also think heavier-than-air powered flight is impossible?

I love you. And @prodromos and @Jipsah and @Lost4words . Forget about the flat earthers, we should just travel to Antarctica. Or better yet Alaska. It has a railroad which makes it more interesting, although sadly it only gets as far north as Fairbanks. But there is the feared Dawson Highway to the Arctic.

 

[prodromos]

Except they have.

And now you have descended into the childish argumentation of "did too", "did not". So much easier than actually backing up your claims.

 

[Edwin Wright]

On that we agree, because the sun orbits a supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way which in turn is in a gravitational motion with other galaxies in the Local Group Cluster, notably Andromeda which in a few billion years will merge with our galaxy.

What's that silly television program called ... The Big Bang Theory? I hear they're looking for writers. Why not apply?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Heliocentrism is obviously false.

Of course, the Sun isn't the center of the Galaxy, let alone the Universe, but that doesn't make the Earth flat.

 

[Edwin Wright]

And now you have descended into the childish argumentation of "did too", "did not". So much easier than actually backing up your claims.

You started it, Seymour.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Logistically, we are talking months at sea and all the necessary supplies, as opposed to a day of flight.

So deal with the logistics rather than your proposed flight of fantasy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What's that silly television program called ... The Big Bang Theory? I hear they're looking for writers. Why not apply?

That would be highly unlikly for two reasons:

1. Such shows are written by members of the writer's guild which is on strike. No one in Hollywood can hire writers for scripted fiction now.
2. The Big Bang Theory ended its run 4 years ago.

The sad fact is that your claim "[BBT TV show is] looking for writers." is far more plausible than your earlier claims about the Earth being flat.

 

[Edwin Wright]

It absolutely does.

And without any earth curvature, they would both meet at the horizon, which on a flat earth is eye level. In the photo, however, the vanishing point is above the horizon, because the surface of the earth is falling away from eye level. This has been demonstrated again and again by photographing the horizon from different elevations using a water level to show eye level relative to the horizon.

Nope. Completely false. The above has no basis in reality.

The vanishing point for both is eye level, which on a flat earth would correspond with the horizon. You do not have two horizons because you only have one eye level.

It would make no difference even if eye level was above the tower tops.

Claims of debunking have likewise been debunked.

Ditto.

I have a suspicion that you will never find enough time.

You have made the above statements with absolutely NO technical proof. Statements like, "I have a suspicion that you will never find enough time," are typical of you and reek of your inherent disingenuousness.

 

[prodromos]

You started it, Seymour.

You made the claim. Back it up

 

[Edwin Wright]

That would be highly unlikly for two reasons:

1. Such shows are written by members of the writer's guild which is on strike. No one in Hollywood can hire writers for scripted fiction now.
2. The Big Bang Theory ended its run 4 years ago.

The sad fact is that your claim "[BBT TV show is] looking for writers." is far more plausible than your earlier claims about the Earth being flat.

You can always hope for a sequel.

 

[sjastro]

@Edwin Wright

In another thread I posed a series a questions to you which you failed to answer.
Since you are still pursing a flat earth geocentric universe, the questions still apply so here is the post again in full.

I'll use my telescope example from another thread which was conveniently ignored by flat earthers because it couldn't be refuted.

The telescope is mounted on a clock driven equatorial fork mount to track the apparent motion of stars.
To work properly the polar axis passing through the arm of the mount must be aligned to the Earth's axis of rotation.
When the telescope is pointed straight up the declination reading illustrated must correspond to the latitude at where the telescope is located.

​

In this case the latitude is -37⁰ 45’.

For your flat model to represent reality you need to answer the following questions.

(1) Explain how the mount polar axis works in a flat earth model; what are you aligning the mount's polar axis to?
(2) Explain how pointing the telescope straight up gives the latitude at where the telescope is located on the Earth's surface.
If the Earth is flat this value will be the same anywhere on the surface.
(3) Explain why does the mount require to be clock driven which rotates the telescope around the polar axis of the mount when you claim Earth doesn't rotate.
A flat Earth with a rotating sky like the Ptolemaic model would make it impossible for a clock driven equatorial mount to track the stars.

It's over to you to explain how the mount can work in a flat Earth model; references to the Bible are not answers.

 

[Edwin Wright]

You made the claim. Back it up

I already did.

 

[Edwin Wright]

@Edwin Wright

In another thread I posed a series a questions to you which you failed to answer.
Since you are still pursing a flat earth geocentric universe, the questions still apply so here is the post again in full.

I'll use my telescope example from another thread which was conveniently ignored by flat earthers because it couldn't be refuted.

View attachment 336074​

The telescope is mounted on a clock driven equatorial fork mount to track the apparent motion of stars.
To work properly the polar axis passing through the arm of the mount must be aligned to the Earth's axis of rotation.
When the telescope is pointed straight up the declination reading illustrated must correspond to the latitude at where the telescope is located.

View attachment 336075
​

In this case the latitude is -37⁰ 45’.

For your flat model to represent reality you need to answer the following questions.

(1) Explain how the mount polar axis works in a flat earth model; what are you aligning the mount's polar axis to?
(2) Explain how pointing the telescope straight up gives the latitude at where the telescope is located on the Earth's surface.
If the Earth is flat this value will be the same anywhere on the surface.
(3) Explain why does the mount require to be clock driven which rotates the telescope around the polar axis of the mount when you claim Earth doesn't rotate.
A flat Earth with a rotating sky like the Ptolemaic model would make it impossible for a clock driven equatorial mount to track the stars.

It's over to you to explain how the mount can work in a flat Earth model; references to the Bible are not answers.

I am not familiar with the apparatus but I will examine your question.

@Edwin Wright

In another thread I posed a series a questions to you which you failed to answer.
Since you are still pursing a flat earth geocentric universe, the questions still apply so here is the post again in full.

I'll use my telescope example from another thread which was conveniently ignored by flat earthers because it couldn't be refuted.

View attachment 336074​

The telescope is mounted on a clock driven equatorial fork mount to track the apparent motion of stars.
To work properly the polar axis passing through the arm of the mount must be aligned to the Earth's axis of rotation.
When the telescope is pointed straight up the declination reading illustrated must correspond to the latitude at where the telescope is located.

View attachment 336075
​

In this case the latitude is -37⁰ 45’.

For your flat model to represent reality you need to answer the following questions.

(1) Explain how the mount polar axis works in a flat earth model; what are you aligning the mount's polar axis to?
(2) Explain how pointing the telescope straight up gives the latitude at where the telescope is located on the Earth's surface.
If the Earth is flat this value will be the same anywhere on the surface.
(3) Explain why does the mount require to be clock driven which rotates the telescope around the polar axis of the mount when you claim Earth doesn't rotate.
A flat Earth with a rotating sky like the Ptolemaic model would make it impossible for a clock driven equatorial mount to track the stars.

It's over to you to explain how the mount can work in a flat Earth model; references to the Bible are not answers.

I am not familiar with the apparatus but I will get back to you on the matter. Who is the manufacturer or supplier of this unit?

 

[sjastro]

I am not familiar with the apparatus but I will examine your question.

I am not familiar with the apparatus but I will get back to you on the matter. Who is the manufacturer or supplier of this unit?

It's the smallest telescope in my collection and is an early version of the Celestron C5.

 

[prodromos]

You have made the above statements with absolutely NO technical proof.

Rules for thee but not for me, huh?

Statements like, "I have a suspicion that you will never find enough time," are typical of you and reek of your inherent disingenuousness.

It's my way of saying you've set yourself an impossible task, so it's not going to happened. Sorry if you don't like the smell.

 

[prodromos]

I already did.

Where?

 

[Edwin Wright]

It's the smallest telescope in my collection and is an early version of the Celestron C5.

Thanks.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Where?

Please grow up.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Rules for thee but not for me, huh?

It's my way of saying you've set yourself an impossible task, so it's not going to happened. Sorry if you don't like the smell.

Do you realize how absolutely presumptuous you are being? The "impossible task" (as you call it) was actually completed in the nineteenth century. My task is to simply provide technical clarification with references and diagrams for the reading public. Unfortunately, that takes time. Have you ever published anything?