President Kimball said the Earth is Globe... or is it Flat? New experiment

[Dusty Wanderer]

I also find the conservation of angular momentum a compelling argument for the earth being a spinning globe. AKA: Coriolis Effect. Explained really well here (6min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeY9tY9vKgs

In the northern hemisphere objects in motion perpendicular to the rotational spin (angled more toward the north pole) will experience deflection to the right (east). In the southern hemisphere it is to the left (east). And none on the equator.

One way of observing this first-hand is with a controlled water drain (vortex). Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38

Another way of observing this first-hand is with Foucault's Pendulum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U

As I understand it, if the earth were flat and spinning, the water drain vortex would spin the same way, regardless of region. If it were flat and not spinning, there would be no vortex at all. And in the case of the pendulum, same thing.

The red bull space jump that I referenced earlier debunks the Coriolis Effect. If the earth is turning underneath objects such as bullets and rockets, then it would have also turned underneath Felix Baumgartner, and there is no way he would have landed only 23 miles away from where he took off.

Go fill up all of the sinks in your house and let them drain, I'll bet you they don't all drain in the same direction, at least they don't in my house.

There are a lot of variables involved in a jump like that other than those related to Coriolis Effect. Let me check out the video and look into it a little.

While I do that, though, how does that change what's been observed with my references above? The Red Bull jump may raise some questions, but the observations still stand. I've personally observed them myself, first-hand.

[Pazooka]

How does the flat earth model explain not being able to follow the sun with a telescope as its distance grows and eventually shrinks into a dot?

A telescope CAN follow the sun after the sun has, to all appearances, gone “over the horizon.” You can zoom in and bring that sun right back into view...up to a point. But this gets into the facts behind telescopes and the fact that the air is not empty of particulates which obscure sight over long distances.

How far can a telescope REALLY see? Can it really see hundreds of thousands of miles to the moon? Or can it see the moon because the moon really isn’t hundreds of thousands of miles away? Do you realize that the pictures you’ve always seen of “outer space” from NASA are illustrations based off of “data”? We don’t even have a real image of the earth as seen from “outer space” - we have something called an illustrated composite. WTC? Check out the history of “pictures” of the earth over the decades.

[gradles21]

I also find the conservation of angular momentum a compelling argument for the earth being a spinning globe. AKA: Coriolis Effect. Explained really well here (6min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeY9tY9vKgs

In the northern hemisphere objects in motion perpendicular to the rotational spin (angled more toward the north pole) will experience deflection to the right (east). In the southern hemisphere it is to the left (east). And none on the equator.

One way of observing this first-hand is with a controlled water drain (vortex). Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38

Another way of observing this first-hand is with Foucault's Pendulum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U

As I understand it, if the earth were flat and spinning, the water drain vortex would spin the same way, regardless of region. If it were flat and not spinning, there would be no vortex at all. And in the case of the pendulum, same thing.

The red bull space jump that I referenced earlier debunks the Coriolis Effect. If the earth is turning underneath objects such as bullets and rockets, then it would have also turned underneath Felix Baumgartner, and there is no way he would have landed only 23 miles away from where he took off.

Go fill up all of the sinks in your house and let them drain, I'll bet you they don't all drain in the same direction, at least they don't in my house.

There are a lot of variables involved in a jump like that other than those related to Coriolis Effect. Let me check out the video and look into it a little.

While I do that, though, how does that change what's been observed with my references above? The Red Bull jump may raise some questions, but the observations still stand. I've personally observed them myself, first-hand.

Another thing to note is Felix Baumgartner landed to the East of the takeoff site in New Mexico, let that sink in.

I guess my point is that if the Coriolis Effect is real, then it will affect everything that is in the air, unattached from the spinning sphere, not just pendulums, bullets, rockets, and footballs(according to Neil Degrasse Tyson).

[BroJones]

How does the flat earth model explain not being able to follow the sun with a telescope as its distance grows and eventually shrinks into a dot?

A telescope CAN follow the sun after the sun has, to all appearances, gone “over the horizon.” You can zoom in and bring that sun right back into view...up to a point. But this gets into the facts behind telescopes and the fact that the air is not empty of particulates which obscure sight over long distances.

How far can a telescope REALLY see? Can it really see hundreds of thousands of miles to the moon? Or can it see the moon because the moon really isn’t hundreds of thousands of miles away? Do you realize that the pictures you’ve always seen of “outer space” from NASA are illustrations based off of “data”? We don’t even have a real image of the earth as seen from “outer space” - we have something called an illustrated composite. WTC? Check out the history of “pictures” of the earth over the decades.

Wow... let's check this re telescopes and the sun receding..flat earth... Or going behind the horizon..globe earth...

Good experiments to give us answers!!!

[NeveR]

Well I've been talking about this with friends and family in real world and one of them said this -

"Maybe I’m missing the point but I don’t see why these guys are spending so much time talking about curvature and not figuring out where the edge is..."

If it's flat there MUST be an edge, right?

🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️


EDIT after watching the sunset video. - If the sun really were an object rotating around a stationary disc, and if it only appears to rise above and sink below the surface because it's moving toward and then away from us - wouldn't it also appear to get bigger as it moved towards us in the morning and then smaller as it moved away from us in the afternoon?

[Pazooka]

Well I've been talking about this with friends and family in real world and one of them said this -

"Maybe I’m missing the point but I don’t see why these guys are spending so much time talking about curvature and not figuring out where the edge is..."

If it's flat there MUST be an edge, right?




EDIT after watching the sunset video. - If the sun really were an object rotating around a stationary disc, and if it only appears to rise above and sink below the surface because it's moving toward and then away from us - wouldn't it also appear to get bigger as it moved towards us in the morning and then smaller as it moved away from us in the afternoon?

Yes, depending. There are several videos online tracking how the sun shrinks at sunset, especially in pristine desert areas. Where there is humidity and certain types of pollution, the sun appears large at sunrise and sunset because of the atmospheric effect it produces.

And yes, they’ve found the edge. It’s off limits to the general populace and very cold.

[Dusty Wanderer]

I also find the conservation of angular momentum a compelling argument for the earth being a spinning globe. AKA: Coriolis Effect. Explained really well here (6min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeY9tY9vKgs

In the northern hemisphere objects in motion perpendicular to the rotational spin (angled more toward the north pole) will experience deflection to the right (east). In the southern hemisphere it is to the left (east). And none on the equator.

One way of observing this first-hand is with a controlled water drain (vortex). Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38

Another way of observing this first-hand is with Foucault's Pendulum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U

As I understand it, if the earth were flat and spinning, the water drain vortex would spin the same way, regardless of region. If it were flat and not spinning, there would be no vortex at all. And in the case of the pendulum, same thing.

The red bull space jump that I referenced earlier debunks the Coriolis Effect. If the earth is turning underneath objects such as bullets and rockets, then it would have also turned underneath Felix Baumgartner, and there is no way he would have landed only 23 miles away from where he took off.

Go fill up all of the sinks in your house and let them drain, I'll bet you they don't all drain in the same direction, at least they don't in my house.

There are a lot of variables involved in a jump like that other than those related to Coriolis Effect. Let me check out the video and look into it a little.

While I do that, though, how does that change what's been observed with my references above? The Red Bull jump may raise some questions, but the observations still stand. I've personally observed them myself, first-hand.

Another thing to note is Felix Baumgartner landed to the East of the takeoff site in New Mexico, let that sink in.

I guess my point is that if the Coriolis Effect is real, then it will affect everything that is in the air, unattached from the spinning sphere, not just pendulums, bullets, rockets, and footballs(according to Neil Degrasse Tyson).

Man, that Red Bull jump of Felix Baumgartner is pretty awesome!

And I watched that ND Tyson video about the jump - funny stuff, but boy, he comes off as a shill sometimes. Didn't like how he was tearing down Red Bull's accomplishment to make his point. But that's a different topic, moving on...

Landing to the East of the takeoff site would be expected whether the distance covered is attributed to deflection from angular momentum (Coriolis Effect) or just plain old wind speeds, most likely the latter more than the former.

From what I could find, it looked like he landed 43.8 miles from the launch site. Interestingly enough, the capsule landed in the same spot, though it was left up in the stratosphere for a while longer before it started its drop. Couldn't find how much longer anywhere (cf. #3 above). Even when you thought he landed 23 miles from the launch site I still thought that was significant. The capsule maxed out at 24.2 miles (127,852.4 ft) relatively straight up. Imagine jumping from a 10' ladder and landing 10' away from its base - that's seems significant to me.

In order for the capsule to cover that much distance it would need to experience an average wind speed of 18 MPH over the 2.5 hour ascent, which is more than reasonable, even when you consider that the capsule achieve 135.7 MPH at some point, most likely passing through the mid to upper Troposphere. I was able to infer wind speeds and direction of prevailing winds of the launch area from NOAA and Wunderground. Clearly easterly in direction.

A few things to consider:
1. We think of the atmosphere as light and airy but it has quite a bit of mass, experiences inertia, and spins with the earth. The capsule left he influence of the rotation speeds of the ground, but was still in the atmosphere.

2. The capsule started with zero relative ground speed. As I understand it, deflection is experienced in proportion to the angular velocity perpendicular to the direction of earth's spin. If there were any significant, sustained, perpendicular ground speed then deflection from the Coriolis Effect would play a part, which I don't know that it did. I think it's only coincidental that, if deflection were experienced, east is the direction it would go.

3. Not designed as an experiment. Significant lack of controls and data. (Hard to "debunk" Coriolis Effect without data.) No data provided on wind speeds and directions throughout the ascent. No data showing the capsule's changes in direction due to wind speed and direction. No data showing periodic ground speed checks over the entirety of the ascent. How far off the launch target was Felix already before he pulled the chute at 4500 ft above ground, allowing the wind to again effect him? (He free fell 119,431 - so cool).

[Dusty Wanderer]

...

And yes, they’ve found the edge. It’s off limits to the general populace and very cold.

Okay, I can't resist. Who's they? And it's off limits to us regular folk, who's word are we taking?

So many of the flat earth proponents I've spoken to disregard everything control by "them", but then point to things experienced by different group of "them". Some only want to accept things they can observe first-hand; however, they take any accounts of "the edge" on belief. I just find it interesting. Not saying that is what you're doing, Pazooka, at all, so please don't take it that way.

[gradles21]

Well I've been talking about this with friends and family in real world and one of them said this -

"Maybe I’m missing the point but I don’t see why these guys are spending so much time talking about curvature and not figuring out where the edge is..."

If it's flat there MUST be an edge, right?




EDIT after watching the sunset video. - If the sun really were an object rotating around a stationary disc, and if it only appears to rise above and sink below the surface because it's moving toward and then away from us - wouldn't it also appear to get bigger as it moved towards us in the morning and then smaller as it moved away from us in the afternoon?

NeveR you should watch this presentation from taboo conspiracy, I think you'd like it, you won't come away from it as a flat earther but it will answer a bunch of your questions

[jreuben]

As @Stormcloak mentioned earlier, the flat Earth concept is a demonstrable distraction that has been set forth by the luciferians to distract the world from truth. Brother Joseph made it clear what's going on largely in this regard and it's just up to us to progress the true science that has been obfuscated for so long now.

100% the Earth and ALL planets are hollow formations. Fact.

[Pazooka]

...

And yes, they’ve found the edge. It’s off limits to the general populace and very cold.

Okay, I can't resist. Who's they? And it's off limits to us regular folk, who's word are we taking?

So many of the flat earth proponents I've spoken to disregard everything control by "them", but then point to things experienced by different group of "them". Some only want to accept things they can observe first-hand; however, they take any accounts of "the edge" on belief. I just find it interesting. Not saying that is what you're doing, Pazooka, at all, so please don't take it that way.

“They” are the signers of the Antarctic Treaty - originally Germany, the U.S. and....I think Russia (can’t remember) but have come to include all the big players. This vid details it better - with commentary from Admiral Byrd and Rob Skiba (may he Rest In Peace). Operation Highjump, Operation Fishbowl...lots of stuff in the public domain you can look into to verify.

I also take into account the scriptures and things like the Book of Enoch, which corroborate nicely. So, even though I can’t see Antarctica for myself, except the little spot the cruise lines visit, there are other resources.

[EvanLM]

Isaiah said it was a globe or sphere. . . can't remember, will get reference tomorrow. . . he saw it . . .but I don't believe that we went to the moon

[gradles21]

The red bull space jump that I referenced earlier debunks the Coriolis Effect. If the earth is turning underneath objects such as bullets and rockets, then it would have also turned underneath Felix Baumgartner, and there is no way he would have landed only 23 miles away from where he took off.

Go fill up all of the sinks in your house and let them drain, I'll bet you they don't all drain in the same direction, at least they don't in my house.

There are a lot of variables involved in a jump like that other than those related to Coriolis Effect. Let me check out the video and look into it a little.

While I do that, though, how does that change what's been observed with my references above? The Red Bull jump may raise some questions, but the observations still stand. I've personally observed them myself, first-hand.

Another thing to note is Felix Baumgartner landed to the East of the takeoff site in New Mexico, let that sink in.

I guess my point is that if the Coriolis Effect is real, then it will affect everything that is in the air, unattached from the spinning sphere, not just pendulums, bullets, rockets, and footballs(according to Neil Degrasse Tyson).

Man, that Red Bull jump of Felix Baumgartner is pretty awesome!

And I watched that ND Tyson video about the jump - funny stuff, but boy, he comes off as a shill sometimes. Didn't like how he was tearing down Red Bull's accomplishment to make his point. But that's a different topic, moving on...

Landing to the East of the takeoff site would be expected whether the distance covered is attributed to deflection from angular momentum (Coriolis Effect) or just plain old wind speeds, most likely the latter more than the former.

From what I could find, it looked like he landed 43.8 miles from the launch site. Interestingly enough, the capsule landed in the same spot, though it was left up in the stratosphere for a while longer before it started its drop. Couldn't find how much longer anywhere (cf. #3 above). Even when you thought he landed 23 miles from the launch site I still thought that was significant. The capsule maxed out at 24.2 miles (127,852.4 ft) relatively straight up. Imagine jumping from a 10' ladder and landing 10' away from its base - that's seems significant to me.

In order for the capsule to cover that much distance it would need to experience an average wind speed of 18 MPH over the 2.5 hour ascent, which is more than reasonable, even when you consider that the capsule achieve 135.7 MPH at some point, most likely passing through the mid to upper Troposphere. I was able to infer wind speeds and direction of prevailing winds of the launch area from NOAA and Wunderground. Clearly easterly in direction.

A few things to consider:
1. We think of the atmosphere as light and airy but it has quite a bit of mass, experiences inertia, and spins with the earth. The capsule left he influence of the rotation speeds of the ground, but was still in the atmosphere.

2. The capsule started with zero relative ground speed. As I understand it, deflection is experienced in proportion to the angular velocity perpendicular to the direction of earth's spin. If there were any significant, sustained, perpendicular ground speed then deflection from the Coriolis Effect would play a part, which I don't know that it did. I think it's only coincidental that, if deflection were experienced, east is the direction it would go.

3. Not designed as an experiment. Significant lack of controls and data. (Hard to "debunk" Coriolis Effect without data.) No data provided on wind speeds and directions throughout the ascent. No data showing the capsule's changes in direction due to wind speed and direction. No data showing periodic ground speed checks over the entirety of the ascent. How far off the launch target was Felix already before he pulled the chute at 4500 ft above ground, allowing the wind to again effect him? (He free fell 119,431 - so cool).

From what I read there was 3.4 mph Southeast winds, given that he was in the air for almost 3 hours I believe he shouldn't landed way West of his takeoff station. Another interesting thing to look at with this video is the horizon level inside the capsule at takeoff compared to the horizon level when he opens the capsule before he jumps.

[NeveR]

...

And yes, they’ve found the edge. It’s off limits to the general populace and very cold.

Okay, I can't resist. Who's they? And it's off limits to us regular folk, who's word are we taking?

So many of the flat earth proponents I've spoken to disregard everything control by "them", but then point to things experienced by different group of "them". Some only want to accept things they can observe first-hand; however, they take any accounts of "the edge" on belief. I just find it interesting. Not saying that is what you're doing, Pazooka, at all, so please don't take it that way.

“They” are the signers of the Antarctic Treaty - originally Germany, the U.S. and....I think Russia (can’t remember) but have come to include all the big players. This vid details it better - with commentary from Admiral Byrd and Rob Skiba (may he Rest In Peace). Operation Highjump, Operation Fishbowl...lots of stuff in the public domain you can look into to verify.

I also take into account the scriptures and things like the Book of Enoch, which corroborate nicely. So, even though I can’t see Antarctica for myself, except the little spot the cruise lines visit, there are other resources.

Ok. So, to summarize for people like me who are new to this, the 'flat earth' narrative goes like this -

The earth is a stationary flat disc orbited by two spheres of identical size and close proximity. The stars are NOT distant heavenly bodies in a vast, possibly infinite universe, they are...what? Lights positioned in a dome over our heads? The edge of this disc is the frozen place we call Antarctica.

However, at some point in the distant past, powerful and knowledgeable people got together and agreed to pretend the earth was a spinning ball orbiting a large sun. They then proceeded to falsify data on a massive scale and over millennia, in order to make this lie seem plausible.

Is this a fair summary?

Is there a theory about why they decided to do this?

[markharr]

I guess this is the solar system?

o o -- o O Ø O O •

[LDS Physician]

...

And yes, they’ve found the edge. It’s off limits to the general populace and very cold.

Okay, I can't resist. Who's they? And it's off limits to us regular folk, who's word are we taking?

So many of the flat earth proponents I've spoken to disregard everything control by "them", but then point to things experienced by different group of "them". Some only want to accept things they can observe first-hand; however, they take any accounts of "the edge" on belief. I just find it interesting. Not saying that is what you're doing, Pazooka, at all, so please don't take it that way.

“They” are the signers of the Antarctic Treaty - originally Germany, the U.S. and....I think Russia (can’t remember) but have come to include all the big players. This vid details it better - with commentary from Admiral Byrd and Rob Skiba (may he Rest In Peace). Operation Highjump, Operation Fishbowl...lots of stuff in the public domain you can look into to verify.

I also take into account the scriptures and things like the Book of Enoch, which corroborate nicely. So, even though I can’t see Antarctica for myself, except the little spot the cruise lines visit, there are other resources.

Ok. So, to summarize for people like me who are new to this, the 'flat earth' narrative goes like this -

The earth is a stationary flat disc orbited by two spheres of identical size and close proximity. The stars are NOT distant heavenly bodies in a vast, possibly infinite universe, they are...what? Lights positioned in a dome over our heads? The edge of this disc is the frozen place we call Antarctica.

However, at some point in the distant past, powerful and knowledgeable people got together and agreed to pretend the earth was a spinning ball orbiting a large sun. They then proceeded to falsify data on a massive scale and over millennia, in order to make this lie seem plausible.

Is this a fair summary?

Is there a theory about why they decided to do this?

This has been a point of mine regarding all the supposed deception. Why? Why would they want to propagate a false view of the earth? What does this give them?

[Dusty Wanderer]

There are a lot of variables involved in a jump like that other than those related to Coriolis Effect. Let me check out the video and look into it a little.

While I do that, though, how does that change what's been observed with my references above? The Red Bull jump may raise some questions, but the observations still stand. I've personally observed them myself, first-hand.

Another thing to note is Felix Baumgartner landed to the East of the takeoff site in New Mexico, let that sink in.

I guess my point is that if the Coriolis Effect is real, then it will affect everything that is in the air, unattached from the spinning sphere, not just pendulums, bullets, rockets, and footballs(according to Neil Degrasse Tyson).

Man, that Red Bull jump of Felix Baumgartner is pretty awesome!

And I watched that ND Tyson video about the jump - funny stuff, but boy, he comes off as a shill sometimes. Didn't like how he was tearing down Red Bull's accomplishment to make his point. But that's a different topic, moving on...

Landing to the East of the takeoff site would be expected whether the distance covered is attributed to deflection from angular momentum (Coriolis Effect) or just plain old wind speeds, most likely the latter more than the former.

From what I could find, it looked like he landed 43.8 miles from the launch site. Interestingly enough, the capsule landed in the same spot, though it was left up in the stratosphere for a while longer before it started its drop. Couldn't find how much longer anywhere (cf. #3 above). Even when you thought he landed 23 miles from the launch site I still thought that was significant. The capsule maxed out at 24.2 miles (127,852.4 ft) relatively straight up. Imagine jumping from a 10' ladder and landing 10' away from its base - that's seems significant to me.

In order for the capsule to cover that much distance it would need to experience an average wind speed of 18 MPH over the 2.5 hour ascent, which is more than reasonable, even when you consider that the capsule achieve 135.7 MPH at some point, most likely passing through the mid to upper Troposphere. I was able to infer wind speeds and direction of prevailing winds of the launch area from NOAA and Wunderground. Clearly easterly in direction.

A few things to consider:
1. We think of the atmosphere as light and airy but it has quite a bit of mass, experiences inertia, and spins with the earth. The capsule left he influence of the rotation speeds of the ground, but was still in the atmosphere.

2. The capsule started with zero relative ground speed. As I understand it, deflection is experienced in proportion to the angular velocity perpendicular to the direction of earth's spin. If there were any significant, sustained, perpendicular ground speed then deflection from the Coriolis Effect would play a part, which I don't know that it did. I think it's only coincidental that, if deflection were experienced, east is the direction it would go.

3. Not designed as an experiment. Significant lack of controls and data. (Hard to "debunk" Coriolis Effect without data.) No data provided on wind speeds and directions throughout the ascent. No data showing the capsule's changes in direction due to wind speed and direction. No data showing periodic ground speed checks over the entirety of the ascent. How far off the launch target was Felix already before he pulled the chute at 4500 ft above ground, allowing the wind to again effect him? (He free fell 119,431 - so cool).

From what I read there was 3.4 mph Southeast winds, given that he was in the air for almost 3 hours I believe he shouldn't landed way West of his takeoff station. Another interesting thing to look at with this video is the horizon level inside the capsule at takeoff compared to the horizon level when he opens the capsule before he jumps.

Okay, let's say that 3.4 MPH SE wind is accurate. Was that surface winds? Because 3.4 MPH SE wouldn't begin to account for the distance traveled - the capsule would need to average 18 MPH ground speed. The capsule reached 130 MPH in a spike at one point. (It's common to have circular wind formations in upper atmosphere.) And it doesn't account for the capsule's top ground speed. (As I pointed out above.) Prevailing winds could be blowing in the opposite direction just 100 ft or more above observed surface winds. What about wind conditions at lower tropo, mid tropo, upper tropo, lower strato?

Anyway, we're missing crucial data with the Red Bull jump to use it as a case study for Coriolis Effect. Conclusions are being drawn without the proper data. This is usually an indication of bias.

I'm not some kind of flat earth hater. To the contrary, I'm open to any arguments, as long as they're generally verifiable. I have yet to see an argument explaining the controlled water drain or pendulum experiments. Perhaps they can be explained with a theory in the flat earth model - I'm all ears - but I haven't seen any reconciliation for it. And simply dismissing the observations because we don't have a good answer for why something is occurring differently than expected doesn't help either model.

[Wondering Wendy]

Okay, I can't resist. Who's they? And it's off limits to us regular folk, who's word are we taking?

So many of the flat earth proponents I've spoken to disregard everything control by "them", but then point to things experienced by different group of "them". Some only want to accept things they can observe first-hand; however, they take any accounts of "the edge" on belief. I just find it interesting. Not saying that is what you're doing, Pazooka, at all, so please don't take it that way.

“They” are the signers of the Antarctic Treaty - originally Germany, the U.S. and....I think Russia (can’t remember) but have come to include all the big players. This vid details it better - with commentary from Admiral Byrd and Rob Skiba (may he Rest In Peace). Operation Highjump, Operation Fishbowl...lots of stuff in the public domain you can look into to verify.

I also take into account the scriptures and things like the Book of Enoch, which corroborate nicely. So, even though I can’t see Antarctica for myself, except the little spot the cruise lines visit, there are other resources.

Ok. So, to summarize for people like me who are new to this, the 'flat earth' narrative goes like this -

The earth is a stationary flat disc orbited by two spheres of identical size and close proximity. The stars are NOT distant heavenly bodies in a vast, possibly infinite universe, they are...what? Lights positioned in a dome over our heads? The edge of this disc is the frozen place we call Antarctica.

However, at some point in the distant past, powerful and knowledgeable people got together and agreed to pretend the earth was a spinning ball orbiting a large sun. They then proceeded to falsify data on a massive scale and over millennia, in order to make this lie seem plausible.

Is this a fair summary?

Is there a theory about why they decided to do this?

This has been a point of mine regarding all the supposed deception. Why? Why would they want to propagate a false view of the earth? What does this give them?

While I am not certain either way because I don't trust NASA at all, the answer to why can be summed up like this: to discredit God and the Bible.

The LDS view of the worlds and the universe is fairly unique in Christianity. While our scriptures speak more of the Globe Earth model, the Bible speaks more of the Flat Earth model. Waters above, sitting on pillars, fixed, immovable, etc.

"Science" teaches Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, all without need of a Creator. Atheism has risen exponentially since these ideas have been taught in school. The Globe Earth model promotes Atheism as we are just one tiny speck in a tiny galaxy in a vast universe. These promote feelings of insignificance, with people randomly formed from apes, instead of a world created for us by God, with us in His image.

The idea of an enclosed system with a firmament, made in 6 days or 6000 years, relies more on a Creator. It seems more purposeful in nature. I know of several people who have said because of the Flat Earth model, they have found God.

So, whatever the truth, they are using science to hide God and promote Atheism. This is how I see it anyway.

[gradles21]

Another thing to note is Felix Baumgartner landed to the East of the takeoff site in New Mexico, let that sink in.

I guess my point is that if the Coriolis Effect is real, then it will affect everything that is in the air, unattached from the spinning sphere, not just pendulums, bullets, rockets, and footballs(according to Neil Degrasse Tyson).

Man, that Red Bull jump of Felix Baumgartner is pretty awesome!

And I watched that ND Tyson video about the jump - funny stuff, but boy, he comes off as a shill sometimes. Didn't like how he was tearing down Red Bull's accomplishment to make his point. But that's a different topic, moving on...

Landing to the East of the takeoff site would be expected whether the distance covered is attributed to deflection from angular momentum (Coriolis Effect) or just plain old wind speeds, most likely the latter more than the former.

From what I could find, it looked like he landed 43.8 miles from the launch site. Interestingly enough, the capsule landed in the same spot, though it was left up in the stratosphere for a while longer before it started its drop. Couldn't find how much longer anywhere (cf. #3 above). Even when you thought he landed 23 miles from the launch site I still thought that was significant. The capsule maxed out at 24.2 miles (127,852.4 ft) relatively straight up. Imagine jumping from a 10' ladder and landing 10' away from its base - that's seems significant to me.

In order for the capsule to cover that much distance it would need to experience an average wind speed of 18 MPH over the 2.5 hour ascent, which is more than reasonable, even when you consider that the capsule achieve 135.7 MPH at some point, most likely passing through the mid to upper Troposphere. I was able to infer wind speeds and direction of prevailing winds of the launch area from NOAA and Wunderground. Clearly easterly in direction.

A few things to consider:
1. We think of the atmosphere as light and airy but it has quite a bit of mass, experiences inertia, and spins with the earth. The capsule left he influence of the rotation speeds of the ground, but was still in the atmosphere.

2. The capsule started with zero relative ground speed. As I understand it, deflection is experienced in proportion to the angular velocity perpendicular to the direction of earth's spin. If there were any significant, sustained, perpendicular ground speed then deflection from the Coriolis Effect would play a part, which I don't know that it did. I think it's only coincidental that, if deflection were experienced, east is the direction it would go.

3. Not designed as an experiment. Significant lack of controls and data. (Hard to "debunk" Coriolis Effect without data.) No data provided on wind speeds and directions throughout the ascent. No data showing the capsule's changes in direction due to wind speed and direction. No data showing periodic ground speed checks over the entirety of the ascent. How far off the launch target was Felix already before he pulled the chute at 4500 ft above ground, allowing the wind to again effect him? (He free fell 119,431 - so cool).

From what I read there was 3.4 mph Southeast winds, given that he was in the air for almost 3 hours I believe he shouldn't landed way West of his takeoff station. Another interesting thing to look at with this video is the horizon level inside the capsule at takeoff compared to the horizon level when he opens the capsule before he jumps.

Okay, let's say that 3.4 MPH SE wind is accurate. Was that surface winds? Because 3.4 MPH SE wouldn't begin to account for the distance traveled - the capsule would need to average 18 MPH ground speed. The capsule reached 130 MPH in a spike at one point. (It's common to have circular wind formations in upper atmosphere.) And it doesn't account for the capsule's top ground speed. (As I pointed out above.) Prevailing winds could be blowing in the opposite direction just 100 ft or more above observed surface winds. What about wind conditions at lower tropo, mid tropo, upper tropo, lower strato?

Anyway, we're missing crucial data with the Red Bull jump to use it as a case study for Coriolis Effect. Conclusions are being drawn without the proper data. This is usually an indication of bias.

I'm not some kind of flat earth hater. To the contrary, I'm open to any arguments, as long as they're generally verifiable. I have yet to see an argument explaining the controlled water drain or pendulum experiments. Perhaps they can be explained with a theory in the flat earth model - I'm all ears - but I haven't seen any reconciliation for it. And simply dismissing the observations because we don't have a good answer for why something is occurring differently than expected doesn't help either model.

Ok so the claim is that the pendulum is in a separate reference frame from the earth, and that earth turns underneath the pendulum. If this is true, earth would turn under anything in the same reference frame as the pendulum, including airplanes, which would mean that east to west flight times would be shorter than west to east, but they aren't.
BTW I'm not a flat earther, I'm just skeptical of the globe model. There isn't a flat earth model, and if there was I definitely wouldn't subscribe to it.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Man, that Red Bull jump of Felix Baumgartner is pretty awesome!

And I watched that ND Tyson video about the jump - funny stuff, but boy, he comes off as a shill sometimes. Didn't like how he was tearing down Red Bull's accomplishment to make his point. But that's a different topic, moving on...

Landing to the East of the takeoff site would be expected whether the distance covered is attributed to deflection from angular momentum (Coriolis Effect) or just plain old wind speeds, most likely the latter more than the former.

From what I could find, it looked like he landed 43.8 miles from the launch site. Interestingly enough, the capsule landed in the same spot, though it was left up in the stratosphere for a while longer before it started its drop. Couldn't find how much longer anywhere (cf. #3 above). Even when you thought he landed 23 miles from the launch site I still thought that was significant. The capsule maxed out at 24.2 miles (127,852.4 ft) relatively straight up. Imagine jumping from a 10' ladder and landing 10' away from its base - that's seems significant to me.

In order for the capsule to cover that much distance it would need to experience an average wind speed of 18 MPH over the 2.5 hour ascent, which is more than reasonable, even when you consider that the capsule achieve 135.7 MPH at some point, most likely passing through the mid to upper Troposphere. I was able to infer wind speeds and direction of prevailing winds of the launch area from NOAA and Wunderground. Clearly easterly in direction.

A few things to consider:
1. We think of the atmosphere as light and airy but it has quite a bit of mass, experiences inertia, and spins with the earth. The capsule left he influence of the rotation speeds of the ground, but was still in the atmosphere.

2. The capsule started with zero relative ground speed. As I understand it, deflection is experienced in proportion to the angular velocity perpendicular to the direction of earth's spin. If there were any significant, sustained, perpendicular ground speed then deflection from the Coriolis Effect would play a part, which I don't know that it did. I think it's only coincidental that, if deflection were experienced, east is the direction it would go.

3. Not designed as an experiment. Significant lack of controls and data. (Hard to "debunk" Coriolis Effect without data.) No data provided on wind speeds and directions throughout the ascent. No data showing the capsule's changes in direction due to wind speed and direction. No data showing periodic ground speed checks over the entirety of the ascent. How far off the launch target was Felix already before he pulled the chute at 4500 ft above ground, allowing the wind to again effect him? (He free fell 119,431 - so cool).

From what I read there was 3.4 mph Southeast winds, given that he was in the air for almost 3 hours I believe he shouldn't landed way West of his takeoff station. Another interesting thing to look at with this video is the horizon level inside the capsule at takeoff compared to the horizon level when he opens the capsule before he jumps.

Okay, let's say that 3.4 MPH SE wind is accurate. Was that surface winds? Because 3.4 MPH SE wouldn't begin to account for the distance traveled - the capsule would need to average 18 MPH ground speed. The capsule reached 130 MPH in a spike at one point. (It's common to have circular wind formations in upper atmosphere.) And it doesn't account for the capsule's top ground speed. (As I pointed out above.) Prevailing winds could be blowing in the opposite direction just 100 ft or more above observed surface winds. What about wind conditions at lower tropo, mid tropo, upper tropo, lower strato?

Anyway, we're missing crucial data with the Red Bull jump to use it as a case study for Coriolis Effect. Conclusions are being drawn without the proper data. This is usually an indication of bias.

I'm not some kind of flat earth hater. To the contrary, I'm open to any arguments, as long as they're generally verifiable. I have yet to see an argument explaining the controlled water drain or pendulum experiments. Perhaps they can be explained with a theory in the flat earth model - I'm all ears - but I haven't seen any reconciliation for it. And simply dismissing the observations because we don't have a good answer for why something is occurring differently than expected doesn't help either model.

Ok so the claim is that the pendulum is in a separate reference frame from the earth, and that earth turns underneath the pendulum. If this is true, earth would turn under anything in the same reference frame as the pendulum, including airplanes, which would mean that east to west flight times would be shorter than west to east, but they aren't.
BTW I'm not a flat earther, I'm just skeptical of the globe model. There isn't a flat earth model, and if there was I definitely wouldn't subscribe to it.

I'm inherently skeptical myself and don't place much stock in either model. Honestly, I don't know how either changes anything for me day-to-day. But I'm a curious person and a sucker for a good mystery or problem.

Yes, that's the premise for the pendulum and the water drain. And I'm not saying that its empirical proof either. I honestly would just like to know why, if the earth is not a spinning globe, do we observe what we observe.

And with the planes, your expectations would be correct in a vacuum. However, my understanding is that the flights still contend against the inertia of the atmosphere, since it spins with the earth. I think this is also why they say launch trajectories of rockets go with the spin of the atmosphere. It would be interesting to look at the source code for jet auto-pilot software to see if it uses the same angular momentum variables from my first post on this thread about artillery ballistics equations.

I used to commute from Utah to NYC twice a month and the east bound flights were always shorter than the flights home, but I'm pretty certain that had to do much more with the jet stream and prevailing winds.

[BroJones]

Man, that Red Bull jump of Felix Baumgartner is pretty awesome!

And I watched that ND Tyson video about the jump - funny stuff, but boy, he comes off as a shill sometimes. Didn't like how he was tearing down Red Bull's accomplishment to make his point. But that's a different topic, moving on...

Landing to the East of the takeoff site would be expected whether the distance covered is attributed to deflection from angular momentum (Coriolis Effect) or just plain old wind speeds, most likely the latter more than the former.

From what I could find, it looked like he landed 43.8 miles from the launch site. Interestingly enough, the capsule landed in the same spot, though it was left up in the stratosphere for a while longer before it started its drop. Couldn't find how much longer anywhere (cf. #3 above). Even when you thought he landed 23 miles from the launch site I still thought that was significant. The capsule maxed out at 24.2 miles (127,852.4 ft) relatively straight up. Imagine jumping from a 10' ladder and landing 10' away from its base - that's seems significant to me.

In order for the capsule to cover that much distance it would need to experience an average wind speed of 18 MPH over the 2.5 hour ascent, which is more than reasonable, even when you consider that the capsule achieve 135.7 MPH at some point, most likely passing through the mid to upper Troposphere. I was able to infer wind speeds and direction of prevailing winds of the launch area from NOAA and Wunderground. Clearly easterly in direction.

A few things to consider:
1. We think of the atmosphere as light and airy but it has quite a bit of mass, experiences inertia, and spins with the earth. The capsule left he influence of the rotation speeds of the ground, but was still in the atmosphere.

2. The capsule started with zero relative ground speed. As I understand it, deflection is experienced in proportion to the angular velocity perpendicular to the direction of earth's spin. If there were any significant, sustained, perpendicular ground speed then deflection from the Coriolis Effect would play a part, which I don't know that it did. I think it's only coincidental that, if deflection were experienced, east is the direction it would go.

3. Not designed as an experiment. Significant lack of controls and data. (Hard to "debunk" Coriolis Effect without data.) No data provided on wind speeds and directions throughout the ascent. No data showing the capsule's changes in direction due to wind speed and direction. No data showing periodic ground speed checks over the entirety of the ascent. How far off the launch target was Felix already before he pulled the chute at 4500 ft above ground, allowing the wind to again effect him? (He free fell 119,431 - so cool).

From what I read there was 3.4 mph Southeast winds, given that he was in the air for almost 3 hours I believe he shouldn't landed way West of his takeoff station. Another interesting thing to look at with this video is the horizon level inside the capsule at takeoff compared to the horizon level when he opens the capsule before he jumps.

Okay, let's say that 3.4 MPH SE wind is accurate. Was that surface winds? Because 3.4 MPH SE wouldn't begin to account for the distance traveled - the capsule would need to average 18 MPH ground speed. The capsule reached 130 MPH in a spike at one point. (It's common to have circular wind formations in upper atmosphere.) And it doesn't account for the capsule's top ground speed. (As I pointed out above.) Prevailing winds could be blowing in the opposite direction just 100 ft or more above observed surface winds. What about wind conditions at lower tropo, mid tropo, upper tropo, lower strato?

Anyway, we're missing crucial data with the Red Bull jump to use it as a case study for Coriolis Effect. Conclusions are being drawn without the proper data. This is usually an indication of bias.

I'm not some kind of flat earth hater. To the contrary, I'm open to any arguments, as long as they're generally verifiable. I have yet to see an argument explaining the controlled water drain or pendulum experiments. Perhaps they can be explained with a theory in the flat earth model - I'm all ears - but I haven't seen any reconciliation for it. And simply dismissing the observations because we don't have a good answer for why something is occurring differently than expected doesn't help either model.

Ok so the claim is that the pendulum is in a separate reference frame from the earth, and that earth turns underneath the pendulum. If this is true, earth would turn under anything in the same reference frame as the pendulum, including airplanes, which would mean that east to west flight times would be shorter than west to east, but they aren't.
BTW I'm not a flat earther, I'm just skeptical of the globe model. There isn't a flat earth model, and if there was I definitely wouldn't subscribe to it.

Quote: " If this is true, earth would turn under anything in the same reference frame as the pendulum, including airplanes, which would mean that east to west flight times would be shorter than west to east, but they aren't. "
Sorry, no. The Foucault pendulum experiment DOES show that the earth ROTATES, absolutely - disproving the stationary (disk) earth models.
But for airplanes, their reference frame is the AIR in which they move - and indeed, planes are strongly influenced by Head-winds, Tail-winds, Cross-winds, all winds.

Now there is an experiment with airplanes that proves (once again) that the earth does TURN (rotate) - totally consistent with the spinning-globe model. In this experiment, two planes were sent around the earth, returning to the same spot. One flew EAST the entire time, the other flew WEST - and each carried a very accurate atomic clock. It was OBSERVED experimentally that the atomic clock on the plane flying EAST, the same direction as the earth turns, ran indeed SLOWER than an identical clock on the plane flying WEST. This was a test of RELATIVITY, for the change in speed was EXACTLY as predicted by Einstein (also by Lorentz - but that's a story for another time).
The point is this: if the earth was stationary, a feature of flat-earth models, then the two atomic clocks would read the SAME time at the end of their travels around the earth. But - this was not the case. This experiment PROVED experimentally, that indeed the earth is turning - and its spin-velocity is well known.

So again, we have a solid experiment which demonstrates that the earth is SPINNING, absolutely not stationary.

[NeveR]

Okay, I can't resist. Who's they? And it's off limits to us regular folk, who's word are we taking?

So many of the flat earth proponents I've spoken to disregard everything control by "them", but then point to things experienced by different group of "them". Some only want to accept things they can observe first-hand; however, they take any accounts of "the edge" on belief. I just find it interesting. Not saying that is what you're doing, Pazooka, at all, so please don't take it that way.

“They” are the signers of the Antarctic Treaty - originally Germany, the U.S. and....I think Russia (can’t remember) but have come to include all the big players. This vid details it better - with commentary from Admiral Byrd and Rob Skiba (may he Rest In Peace). Operation Highjump, Operation Fishbowl...lots of stuff in the public domain you can look into to verify.

I also take into account the scriptures and things like the Book of Enoch, which corroborate nicely. So, even though I can’t see Antarctica for myself, except the little spot the cruise lines visit, there are other resources.

Ok. So, to summarize for people like me who are new to this, the 'flat earth' narrative goes like this -

The earth is a stationary flat disc orbited by two spheres of identical size and close proximity. The stars are NOT distant heavenly bodies in a vast, possibly infinite universe, they are...what? Lights positioned in a dome over our heads? The edge of this disc is the frozen place we call Antarctica.

However, at some point in the distant past, powerful and knowledgeable people got together and agreed to pretend the earth was a spinning ball orbiting a large sun. They then proceeded to falsify data on a massive scale and over millennia, in order to make this lie seem plausible.

Is this a fair summary?

Is there a theory about why they decided to do this?

This has been a point of mine regarding all the supposed deception. Why? Why would they want to propagate a false view of the earth? What does this give them?

Yes. Why would this millennial-long deception be orchestrated? To what end? Has anyone ever explained?

I note in one video the flat earth claims are promoted alongside 9/11Truth, and I DO think a lot of the flat earth stuff was put out as a way to discredit by association genuine skepticism and genuine quests for truth.

[JohnnyL]

I also find the conservation of angular momentum a compelling argument for the earth being a spinning globe. AKA: Coriolis Effect. Explained really well here (6min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeY9tY9vKgs

In the northern hemisphere objects in motion perpendicular to the rotational spin (angled more toward the north pole) will experience deflection to the right (east). In the southern hemisphere it is to the left (east). And none on the equator.

One way of observing this first-hand is with a controlled water drain (vortex). Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38

Another way of observing this first-hand is with Foucault's Pendulum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U

As I understand it, if the earth were flat and spinning, the water drain vortex would spin the same way, regardless of region/hemisphere. If it were flat and not spinning, there would be no vortex at all. And in the case of the pendulum, same thing.

The latest info I read on water drains was results were pretty random. Is this from a relatively new scientific study?

[JohnnyL]

Can you expand on this?

Before I can explain what I’m talking about with the moon, you’ll need to know how sunsets work on the flat earth and how the law of perspective is relevant:

I guess I just don't see why this "law of perspective" is considered significant for the flat earth model. When applied objectively, it could be used to confirm either. The sun and moon are perceived to be the same size in the heliocentric model, not because they are, but due to relative distances from earth.

At the base of a mountain, on the shore of the ocean, as the sun drops below the horizon, I can climb up that mountain and keep rewinding the sunset in a sense. In a flat earth model wouldn't the sun just continue to get smaller and smaller until it disappears? And couldn't I just use a telescope to keep eyes on it longer from the top of that mountain? Why does the sun appear to drop below the horizon where the viewer's position is elevated and there are no objects to obscure its view, like across a vast ocean?

The law of perspective is definitely significant because the heliocentric model has the days produced by the revolving of the earth in relation to the sun, making the sun’s set due to the revolution of the earth, NOT because the sun is moving like the hand of a clock over the face of the clock (as in the flat earth).

Once you understand that, please observe the moon at sunset and notice where the bright side should be pointing and then notice where it actually is pointing.

I'm obviously ignorant, because:
I see the moon during the night and during the day;
I see the same side of the moon every time I look at it, night and day, any position;
I see the moon pointing the wrong way (sun set in the west, moon in the sky reflecting light from the east);
etc.

I watched a video on the second one, and it didn't make any logical sense.

[Dusty Wanderer]

I also find the conservation of angular momentum a compelling argument for the earth being a spinning globe. AKA: Coriolis Effect. Explained really well here (6min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeY9tY9vKgs

In the northern hemisphere objects in motion perpendicular to the rotational spin (angled more toward the north pole) will experience deflection to the right (east). In the southern hemisphere it is to the left (east). And none on the equator.

One way of observing this first-hand is with a controlled water drain (vortex). Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38

Another way of observing this first-hand is with Foucault's Pendulum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U

As I understand it, if the earth were flat and spinning, the water drain vortex would spin the same way, regardless of region/hemisphere. If it were flat and not spinning, there would be no vortex at all. And in the case of the pendulum, same thing.

The latest info I read on water drains was results were pretty random. Is this from a relatively new scientific study?

No new study that I'm aware of. My impression is that most of the inconsistency and randomness in the water drain "experiments" *cough* are due to poor controls. For example, subtle currents introduced from how it was filled up, not enough time to settle, some drains can introduce a spin due to how they're shaped or shapes in floor the basin, heat from a running dishwasher in contact with a sink, etc. I could be wrong, though.