PlayChessPoorly wrote:
Ok i see what you mean but still ice can be shaped can't we make a ramp out of it and jump into outer-space like Evil Keneval?
Once I read an explanation about this in their site, but I do not find now.
Earth is flat. Prove me wrong.
Sort:
Marco... the ice wall model is the correct one. The environment there is very harsh, with little of it being explored. The closer one gets to the edge, the tougher the going, due to the Rotational effects of a disc. You may not be here long enough to remember my experiances (many pages ago) as I gave a first hand account. In short, a submersible was used to reach the ice wall. Along with my only companion Prescott the Labador, we made the 17 mile trek across the ice wall. Obviously, I was tethered to entire way. Needless to say, the view looking over the edge was astounding. After debriefing by NASA, I was sworn to secrecy, as part of what I saw was deemed essential to national security. To be released in 2021 allowing the public enough time to be "conditioned" for the shock of what I observed.
mdinnerspace wrote:
Marco... the ice wall model is the correct one. The environment there is very harsh, with little of it being explored. The closer one gets to the edge, the tougher the going, due to the Rotational effects of a disc. You may not be here long enough to remember my experiances (many pages ago) as I gave a first hand account. In short, a submersible was used to reach the ice wall. Along with my only companion Prescott the Labador, we made the 17 mile trek across the ice wall. Obviously, I was tethered to entire way. Needless to say, the view looking over the edge was astounding. After debriefing by NASA, I was sworn to secrecy, as part of what I saw was deemed essential to national security. To be released in 2021 allowing the public enough time to be "conditioned" for the shock of what I observed.
Amazing.
Your report is consistent to this page:
http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
A_G_A wrote:
Captain Cook was the first sailor to enter the Antarctic circle. He attempted to circumnavigate Antarctica, a journey that the fraudulent globe claims to be around 12,000 miles. He found that he had traveled nearly 70,000 miles and found no openings in the massive ice wall. He wrote, “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
There is a reason why planes fly over the North Pole but not over the South Pole. The great circle connecting Buenos Aires, Argentina and Auckland, New Zealand goes right over Antarctica, yet planes still avoid it. "Too cold," they say...
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/earth-is-flat-prove-me-wrong?page=4
A_G_A wrote:
Take a look at flight patterns. There are so many flights within the southern hemisphere that go very deep into the northern hemisphere for a stop.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/earth-is-flat-prove-me-wrong?page=5
Jul 11, 2016
0
#347
So when global warming melts the ice wall and all the oceans empty we can finally explore the ocean floor. That's pretty cool! I bet we will find some cool fossils, errr uh wait, do we believe in fossils?
A_G_A wrote:
Joseph-S wrote:
Does government fund a consensus for the round earth debate? No.
Does the government try to muzzle, prosecute, or jail round earth deniers? No.
Does the government sponsor endless tv shows and magazine articles espousing the theory of a round earth? No.
Ergo; the earth must be round.
That would make it too obvious that the government is hiding something. Besides, they already have most of the public fooled.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/earth-is-flat-prove-me-wrong?page=13
The United Nations logo is a flat Earth, which mean UN give us a subliminal message:
http://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/un-logo-and-flag/index.html
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
#409
Your nice pic of #409 is ok, but it is based in THEORY and BELIEFS (specially in NASA achievements).
All this thread is based on questioning the beliefs, since most of them are not proved enough.
Then, nice try, but your pic does not refute the Flat Earth Theory.
You must research that Big Bang Theory is questioned even by scientists that support the Round Earth Theory.
What is the minimum size a celestial body can become a sphere?
Megan Whewell from the National Space Centre answers this question for us.
0comments
Asked by Rab Manderson
For a body to become a sphere, it has to have sufficient self-gravity to pull it into a spherical shape. This depends on what the body is made of, for two reasons. The first reason is because the strength of self-gravity depends on the mass of the object rather than its size, implying that bodies made of denser materials become spherical at smaller radii.
The second reason is that some materials are easier to mould into a sphere than others, implying that less strong gravity is needed to push some materials into a spherical shape. The second reason tends to win out. Therefore, for bodies made mainly of rock, the minimum size to become a self-gravitating sphere is about 600km diameter; but, for bodies mainly made of ice, the minimum size is about 400km diameter.
Answered by Megan Whewell, Education Team Presenter for the National Space Centre
Image courtesy of Alamy
Since the Earth exceeds this minimum mass we can safely conclude that it has formed a shere under it's own gavity.
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
What is the minimum size a celestial body can become a sphere?
Ok, but it is about the Round Earth Theory.
This does not refute the Flat Earth Theory.
See the title of this thread:
Earth is flat. Prove me wrong.
Spheres are always round,there are no flat spheres.
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Spheres are always round,there are no flat spheres.
That is the question that remains unclear: how do yo prove that Earth is a sphere?
If I tell you that Earth is flat, how do you prove I am wrong?
I think it is difficult and you only can do it if you BELIEVE in some achievements by NASA. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE ?
I tend to believe in NASA achievements, but I admit Flat Earth Theory is consistent.
Because it's mass exceeds the minimum for a body to form a shere under it's own gravity. You do believe in gravity,or do you just think the Earth sucks?
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Because it's mass exceeds the minimum for a body to form a shere under it's own gravity. You do believe in gravity,or do you just think the Earth sucks?
LOL, Earth sucks 
I think gravity exists and it is not a matter of belief, it is proved.
BUT it is explained by Flat Earth Theory:
Then, gravity exists even if Earth is flat.
Sphere
/sfir/
noun
1.
a round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its center.
A simple definition. A flat disc is indeed round. All the pics from space confirm this. Every point on a flat disc is equidistant from its center. Our flat disc world meets the requirements to be called a sphere. There are no discrepancies regarding its formation.
Jul 11, 2016
0
#360
MarcoBR444 wrote:
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Spheres are always round,there are no flat spheres.
That is the question that remains unclear: how do yo prove that Earth is a sphere?
If I tell you that Earth is flat, how do you prove I am wrong?
I think it is difficult and you only can do it if you BELIEVE in some achievements by NASA. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE ?
I tend to believe in NASA achievements, but I admit Flat Earth Theory is consistent.
What about Russia? It's not all about what NASA says. What about China, India, Iran? They all have satellites.
Other sites:KANSAS IS FLATTER THAN A PANCAKE.
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
Results
The topographic transects of both Kansas and a pancake at millimeter scale are both quite flat, but this first analysis showed that Kansas is clearly flatter (see Figure 4).
Mathematically, a value of 1.000 would indicate perfect, platonic flatness. The calculated flatness of the pancake transect from the digital image is approximately 0.957, which is pretty flat, but far from perfectly flat. The confocal laser scan showed the pancake surface to be slightly rougher, still.
Measuring the flatness of Kansas presented us with a greater challenge than measuring the flatness of the pancake. The state is so flat that the off-the-shelf software produced a flatness value for it of 1. This value was, as they say, too good to be true, so we did a more complex analysis, and after many hours of programming work, we were able to estimate that Kansas’s flatness is approximately 0.9997. That degree of flatness might be described, mathematically, as “damn flat.”