The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave, you seem to be conflating "computer-altered"/"computer-enhanced" with "computer generated." Please stop. They do not mean the same thing.

I know the difference and I mean "generated". It's not an actual picture from space or an altered/enhanced picture from space. It's all graphics designed from a computer.

--Dave
 

Derf

Well-known member
Neil deGrasse Tyson said the earth is an oblate spheroid, not a perfect circle.

When you see a perfect sphere and hear that it just destroys globe earth credibility.

This is obviously computer generated. I was a graphic artist for 10 years, I've seen work done that looks absolutely real, but this one is not that good.

--Dave

That's rich, Dave.

This is from https://www.universetoday.com/15055/diameter-of-earth/:

the diameter of the Earth at the equator is about 43 kilometers (27 mi) larger than the pole-to-pole diameter... the latest measurements indicate that the Earth has an equatorial diameter of 12,756 km (7926 mi), and a polar diameter of 12713.6 km (7899.86 mi).

You can tell the difference between 7926 miles and 7899.86 miles in a photo on your screen????? That's .0034 percent difference. 27 miles is only 5 times the height of the largest bump on the earth's surface. Yet you claim that picture can be used definitively to discern such difference? What attempt did you make to measure it?
 

Right Divider

Body part
That's rich, Dave.

This is from https://www.universetoday.com/15055/diameter-of-earth/:

the diameter of the Earth at the equator is about 43 kilometers (27 mi) larger than the pole-to-pole diameter... the latest measurements indicate that the Earth has an equatorial diameter of 12,756 km (7926 mi), and a polar diameter of 12713.6 km (7899.86 mi).

You can tell the difference between 7926 miles and 7899.86 miles in a photo on your screen????? That's .0034 percent difference. 27 miles is only 5 times the height of the largest bump on the earth's surface. Yet you claim that picture can be used definitively to discern such difference? What attempt did you make to measure it?
.0034 is the ratio, which is .34 percent. Still incredibly small and beyond what the human eye can detect in a picture like that.

Dave has gone totally off the deep end.
 

Derf

Well-known member
I'll assume you meant "area beyond the south pole". Your Adm Byrd video is another complete refutation of your flat earth assertion. First he mentions the south pole. There is no south pole in the standard flat earth model. Then Adm Byrd mentions this unexplored area beyond the south pole that is about the size of the United States.

The United States land area is 3.797 million mi². The shoreline of a flat-earth antarctica is going to be the circumference of a circle with a radius of 11,100 miles (approximate distance from north pole to coast of Antarctica), which is 387,076,536 miles long. Let's say that half of it is already explored, and the other half, the part that Adm Byrd (in 1950s when the Longines Chronicles were aired) said was the size of the United States, is the same size as the explored half (I think this is being generous to your argument). Together they are 7.594 million mi². Dividing by the radius above, the potential size of Antarctica all along the coastline is......

Wait for it......

1.24 e-3 inches wide! In case you didn't quite get that, the width of Antactica, as determined by one of America's greatest explorers, when coupled with the nominal flat earth model is only 1/1000th of an inch.

I did this calculation wrong. The coastline of Antarctica would only be 70,000 miles long. Thus that would expand the width of Australia to 6 inches or so. Sorry about the confusion.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Admiral Byrd is not a flat earther, it's his comments and the fact that Antarctica was closed off to all "unauthorized" exploration after his last trip there that causes many to believe he saw land beyond what we supposedly know about Antarctica.

Captain James Cook's "voyage lasted three years and eight days covering more than 60,000 miles. Cook had proved there was no southern continent unless it was at the pole itself."--Link

Cook traveled twice the circumference of the earth to get around Antarctica.

That's just the tip of the "ice berg" of the mysteries of Antarctica.

--Dave

Do you not even read your own links? It said he sailed 10,000 miles in "uncharted" waters before he wintered in New Zealand. He spent the winter sailing around to the various south pacific islands. He sailed south again and came back to New Zealand. And it was more than 14,000 miles from England to New Zealand. Just going down there and back would account for half of the distance he traveled. He had been to New Zealand in his previous voyage, so none of that would overlap with the "uncharted" miles.

On the other hand, with your flat earth model, the circumference of the world at New Zealand's latitude in the flat earth model would be around 56,360 miles. Dipping down further south numerous times and exploring the South Pacific islands would account for way more than the remaining 3640 miles to add up to 60,000. not to mention the distance from England to the south Atlantic twice.

And I find it rather odd that you will take Adm Byrd's testimony about one thing (an unexplored area the size of the United States) and not about the other (that he could and did actually fly over the South Pole). If he's lying about the one thing--that he could actually fly over the pole, I would think his credibility would be completely destroyed in his assertion about unexplored areas.

But certainly his assertions have had ample opportunity to be visually confirmed or refuted since then, or do you think all research into Antarctica stopped with Adm Byrd?
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
That's rich, Dave.

This is from https://www.universetoday.com/15055/diameter-of-earth/:

the diameter of the Earth at the equator is about 43 kilometers (27 mi) larger than the pole-to-pole diameter... the latest measurements indicate that the Earth has an equatorial diameter of 12,756 km (7926 mi), and a polar diameter of 12713.6 km (7899.86 mi).

You can tell the difference between 7926 miles and 7899.86 miles in a photo on your screen????? That's .0034 percent difference. 27 miles is only 5 times the height of the largest bump on the earth's surface. Yet you claim that picture can be used definitively to discern such difference? What attempt did you make to measure it?

Then by this the earth is a "virtual" sphere and not an oblate spheroid.

The difference is so indistinct we better tell Tyson he's making an idiot of himself by making such a claim.

--Dave

P.S. You missed the point, which is distrust of NASA.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Then by this the earth is a "virtual" sphere and not an oblate spheroid.

The difference is so indistinct we better tell Tyson he's making an idiot of himself by making such a claim.

--Dave

P.S. You missed the point, which is distrust of NASA.
I think you're splitting hairs over unimportant details. It's perfectly acceptable to call a "'virtual' sphere" a sphere.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Do you not even read your own links? It said he sailed 10,000 miles in "uncharted" waters before he wintered in New Zealand. He spent the winter sailing around to the various south pacific islands. He sailed south again and came back to New Zealand. And it was more than 14,000 miles from England to New Zealand. Just going down there and back would account for half of the distance he traveled. He had been to New Zealand in his previous voyage, so none of that would overlap with the "uncharted" miles.

On the other hand, with your flat earth model, the circumference of the world at New Zealand's latitude in the flat earth model would be around 56,360 miles. Dipping down further south numerous times and exploring the South Pacific islands would account for way more than the remaining 3640 miles to add up to 60,000. not to mention the distance from England to the south Atlantic twice.

And I find it rather odd that you will take Adm Byrd's testimony about one thing (an unexplored area the size of the United States) and not about the other (that he could and did actually fly over the South Pole). If he's lying about the one thing--that he could actually fly over the pole, I would think his credibility would be completely destroyed in his assertion about unexplored areas.

But certainly his assertions have had ample opportunity to be visually confirmed or refuted since then, or do you think all research into Antarctica stopped with Adm Byrd?

Again, the problem is distrust and secrecy.

Byrd talked about a land of opportunity and rich with natural resources that could enrich all nations waiting to be explored, that suddenly became forbidden territory. This was way before the EPA and environmental concerns.

At the supposed South Pole all you actually see is more ice and snow.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
How can you tell Dave?

Compare with this from the ISS

Stars, no stars, orange then green and red at the horizon??

If you watch these long enough and compare them there is just way to much variation and inconsistencies.

Can't trust this.


--Dave
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Dave, help me out here because I'm really interested.
If we sail straight South we get to the big ring continent that is Antarctica yes?
That's the outside circumference of the disk correct?
And you can't go there because the government will stop you?
But if you got thru the government then you'd come to an ice wall?
That nobody has ever climbed?
Right so far?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top