[Tom Bishop]

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.

Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.

Measured distances between locations are consistent with the Earth being a globe, not a circle.

And don't give me the "round-Earth derived distances" excuse either. These distances are measured, not extrapolated!

That seems to be a statement rather than evidence.

[AATW]

Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.

Well, there's the famous stick experiment. There are admittedly two possible interpretations of that. The traditional one assumes a distant sun so the rays are parallel which means the earth must be curved. The FE response is that a much closer sun could explain the different angles of the shadows. OK. But then if the sun really is that close then it would be easy to prove by observing the angle of the sun from a few different locations. I asked in my thread about the FE sun whether that had been done. No response yet. You could also do that with the moon if you want to prove the moon's distance. Do that and congratulations, you've got a Nobel prize. I pointed out a few other obvious issues with a closer sun, those haven't been addressed either.
Then there's things like the Coriolis effect which makes weather systems spin in different directions in different hemispheres.
The fact the sun traces an arc across the the sky.
The fact that the stars rotate around the poles and different stars can be seen in each hemisphere and rotate in different directions.
It all points to us being on a spinning globe.

Then there's fact we have a GPS system which demonstrably works/ Satellite TV. An airline industry which demonstrably gets people where they need to go (mostly) on time and uses great circles to plot its routes around the earth. Cruise line industry too.
The fact that multiple polar explorers from multiple countries have been to both poles.
The fact that distant objects can be seen to be partially occluded by the curve of the earth and the amount of occlusion varies by distance.
The fact there is an ISS orbiting the earth which can be seen from earth - NASA publish a website which tells you where and when you can. If they are faking it then they are going out of their way to make it difficult for themselves by doing that, something so easily testable.
Which brings me on to the fact we have photos of earth from space. Not just from NASA, multiple countries have done this.

Meanwhile the flat earth model can't even agree a map which works.

[Macarios]

Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.

Your "conclusion" is based on in advance desired result, not on reality.

I can tell you about real world. It is not flat.

You can find web site that shows positions of subsolar point in any speciffic moment.
It is the moment where at that place length of shadows of vertical objects is zero.
People live at many of those places and if data was wrong they would be happy to expose it.
And if someone tries to falsely "expose" they would gladly expose THEM.
For example, it is Lahaina Noon in Hawaii.

The Sun is moving all the way between Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn.
The best thing is: Sun always travels 15 degrees per hour. That's what makes everything so simple.
Every high school student can see it. Maybe even mid school.

Ground speed of subsolar point for summer solstice shows circumference of Tropic of Cancer.
Ground speed of subsolar point for spring or fall exuinox shows circumference of Equator.
Ground speed of subsolar point for winter solstice shows circumference of Tropic of Capricorn.

Circumference of Tropic of Cancer is 22 850 miles.
Circumference of Equator is 24 900 miles.
Circumference of Tropic of Capricorn is 22 860 miles.

Would you, please, be so kind to explain HOW it "confirms flat Earth" ? ? ?

Example:

For Summer Solstice ground speed of subsolar point can be measured between Tazrouk, Algeria and El Argoub, Western Sahara.
It is 952.1 mph, which gives circumference of Tropic of Cancer to be 22850 miles.

For Equinox ground speed of subsolar point can be measured between Macapa, Brazil and Quito, Ecuador.
It is 1037.5 mph, which gives circumference of Equator to be 24900 miles.

For Winter Solstice ground speed of subsolar point can be measured between Rockhampton, Queensland and Minilya, Western Australia.
It is 952.5 mph, which gives circumference of Tropic of Capricorn to be 22860 miles.

[StinkyOne]

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

From a high altitude reference point at the edge of the atmosphere we might see some slight curvature, but as explained in the article, the observation is consistent with the idea of looking down at a circle. This means that you will have to try to come up with some other kind of evidence that the earth is round.

Tom, your assertion is unsupported by fact. If you were the size of a bacterium on billiard ball, you would incorrect say your world is flat because, to you, it would look flat. You lack data and perspective.


This is far more proof of a round Earth than someone standing on the surface of a huge globe and mistaking it for being flat.

We've been in space and have pictures of Earth. You can claim NASA fakes it, but they are hardly the only entity that has been in space. The Chinese put a lander on the moon. Go check out this pretty cool interactive panorama.
https://www.360cities.net/embed_iframe/lunar-panorama-change-3-lander

[6or1/2Dozen]

I'm still stuck on how looking out the window shows a flat Earth. All I see when I look the window is hills, (also a statement) should I conclude the Earth is hill shaped?

Also "It looks 'X'" does not automatically equal "It IS 'X'".

This car looks fast:



But see that 'replica' at the end of the URL, it's a body kit on an old VW bug. Comparing the 71 mph Bug vs. the actual Ferrari 146 mph, it is NOT fast. This is something that can't be discerned simply by looking at it. Taking it out on a test track would probably reveal it's true nature.

This same thing occurs to Flat Earth when it's taken out on a test, it's true nature is revealed to be something that is not flat.

We can, in fact, know the Earth is round because it's very easy to show mathematically that it cannot be flat - and it doesn't require telescopes or NASA or government information...

We can see the horizon curvature by looking carefully at high-altitude footage AND CORRECTING AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ANY LENS DISTORTION.  In fact, the curvilinear nature of this lens makes it CERTAIN we are seeing actual curvature because below lens center any curvilinear distortion would be FLATTENING out the actual curvature which is why I have carefully choosen [sic] a frame where the horizon is below lens center.



Once you know it is round you can also use this data to calculate the circumference and know how large around it is. Turns out it is very large - which is why merely looking at the horizon doesn't make it obvious.

[Tom Bishop]

Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.

Well, there's the famous stick experiment. There are admittedly two possible interpretations of that. The traditional one assumes a distant sun so the rays are parallel which means the earth must be curved. The FE response is that a much closer sun could explain the different angles of the shadows. OK. But then if the sun really is that close then it would be easy to prove by observing the angle of the sun from a few different locations. I asked in my thread about the FE sun whether that had been done. No response yet. You could also do that with the moon if you want to prove the moon's distance. Do that and congratulations, you've got a Nobel prize. I pointed out a few other obvious issues with a closer sun, those haven't been addressed either.
Then there's things like the Coriolis effect which makes weather systems spin in different directions in different hemispheres.
The fact the sun traces an arc across the the sky.
The fact that the stars rotate around the poles and different stars can be seen in each hemisphere and rotate in different directions.
It all points to us being on a spinning globe.

The stars are not the earth and the Coriolis effect is not the earth. There are Flat Earth models with two poles, and two spinning celestial systems over the poles. There are also Flat Earth models with the concept of celestial gravitation.

None of what you posted directly tells us that the earth must be a globe and cannot be anything else.                         

Then there's fact we have a GPS system which demonstrably works/ Satellite TV. An airline industry which demonstrably gets people where they need to go (mostly) on time and uses great circles to plot its routes around the earth. Cruise line industry too.

The pin point accuracy of GPS distances that are based on spherical coordinates have not been proven. There are many complaints online that GPS is not accurate when compared to other sources.

Navigation works on a Flat Earth. The point that a plane route may be "on time," and that proves that the earth is a globe, is a red herring, because the airliner is the sole decider of what "on time" means. The airliners are, surprise surprise, measuring "on time" compared to the time it previously took to take that path.

The fact that multiple polar explorers from multiple countries have been to both poles.

Again, we have models that have two poles.

The fact that distant objects can be seen to be partially occluded by the curve of the earth and the amount of occlusion varies by distance.

The effect is often reversible with a telescope, proving that the body is not really behind a "hill of water". In some situations at sea, or on inland seas, it is caused by waves. Read Earth Not a Globe.

The fact there is an ISS orbiting the earth which can be seen from earth - NASA publish a website which tells you where and when you can. If they are faking it then they are going out of their way to make it difficult for themselves by doing that, something so easily testable.

Globebusters has a lot of information on the ISS conspiracy.

Which brings me on to the fact we have photos of earth from space. Not just from NASA, multiple countries have done this.

The OP requested not to talk about the conspiracy here. But there is PLENTY of evidence that those organizations are phony.

[Tom Bishop]

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

From a high altitude reference point at the edge of the atmosphere we might see some slight curvature, but as explained in the article, the observation is consistent with the idea of looking down at a circle. This means that you will have to try to come up with some other kind of evidence that the earth is round.

Tom, your assertion is unsupported by fact. If you were the size of a bacterium on billiard ball, you would incorrect say your world is flat because, to you, it would look flat. You lack data and perspective.

https://www.metabunk.org/sk/lake_michigan_mirage-from-grand-mere.jpg

We are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water". Youtube experimenters have provided modern replications of this reversing effect. There are numerous videos. In other instances at sea, and on inland seas, waves are causing the effect.

Please read Earth Not a Globe.

Chapter XIV. Why a Ship's Hull Disappears Before the Mast Head

Chapter XIV: Perspectve on the Sea

You will need to provide a rebuttal to such studies, not just post observations which have been studied over 150 years ago.

[KAL_9000]

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.

Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.

Measured distances between locations are consistent with the Earth being a globe, not a circle.

And don't give me the "round-Earth derived distances" excuse either. These distances are measured, not extrapolated!

That seems to be a statement rather than evidence.

Evidence: Measured distances between locations are consistent with the Earth being a globe, not a circle.

Statement: These distances are measured, not extrapolated!

You see, you can measure the distances yourself, and they'll agree with the publicly stated ones.

[Tom Bishop]

Evidence: Measured distances between locations are consistent with the Earth being a globe

That statement isn't evidence. Are you saying that we can prove the existence of leprechauns with a sentence?

Hitchen's Razor asserts:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
― Christopher Hitchen

Evidence dismissed.

[KAL_9000]

Evidence: Measured distances between locations are consistent with the Earth being a globe

That statement isn't evidence. Are you saying that we can prove the existence of leprechauns with a sentence?

Hitchen's Razor asserts:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
― Christopher Hitchen

Evidence dismissed.

This statement can be backed up by mathematics. Don't believe me? Check out 3DGeek's comprehensive mathematical proof: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0

Oh, yeah, YOU derailed that thread after being proven wrong, and provided us with the immortal:

The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
― Christopher Hitchen

Got it, Flat Earth dismissed.

[Tom Bishop]

This statement can be backed up by mathematics. Don't believe me? Check out 3DGeek's comprehensive mathematical proof: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
Got it, Flat Earth dismissed.

Read through the thread. He was unable to show that the distances were accurate.

[KAL_9000]

This statement can be backed up by mathematics. Don't believe me? Check out 3DGeek's comprehensive mathematical proof: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
Got it, Flat Earth dismissed.

Read through the thread. He was unable to show that the distances were accurate.

Actually, he was. You, however, are apparently too stupid to understand that.

[KAL_9000]

This statement can be backed up by mathematics. Don't believe me? Check out 3DGeek's comprehensive mathematical proof: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
Got it, Flat Earth dismissed.

Read through the thread. He was unable to show that the distances were accurate.

The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

[Tom Bishop]

Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!

[KAL_9000]

Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!

Tom, you're dancing around the subject. If you want to know, you can go find it yourself.

[AATW]

We are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water".

Really? Odd, the link you posted says:

when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

Why is it that you think some dude writing in Victorian times has "proven" something just by him saying he saw it, but you require an absurdly high level of proof of anything which doesn't fit in with your world view?

[Tom Bishop]

Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!

Tom, you're dancing around the subject. If you want to know, you can go find it yourself.

No response. I see.

We are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water".

Really? Odd, the link you posted says:

when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

Why is it that you think some dude writing in Victorian times has "proven" something just by him saying he saw it, but you require an absurdly high level of proof of anything which doesn't fit in with your world view?

Why did you only partially quote me? I clearly said:

We are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water". Youtube experimenters have provided modern replications of this reversing effect. There are numerous videos. In other instances at sea, and on inland seas, waves are causing the effect.

[inquisitive]

We are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water".

Really? Odd, the link you posted says:

when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

Why is it that you think some dude writing in Victorian times has "proven" something just by him saying he saw it, but you require an absurdly high level of proof of anything which doesn't fit in with your world view?

Why did you only partially quote me? I clearly said:

We are aware of such observations. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven that sinking ships are restored when looking at them with a telescope, proving that they are not really behind a "hill of water". Youtube experimenters have provided modern replications of this reversing effect. There are numerous videos. In other instances at sea, and on inland seas, waves are causing the effect.

Why are you unable to show this restoration youself, or even prove to yourself?  Please provide some links to videos.

[Macarios]

Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!

No need to copy and paste. We can do it right now.

Globe Earth model and Flat Earth polar map agree in one thing: distances from North pole are equal on both.

Latitude of Paris is 48.85 degrees north. It means 5427.8 km from Equator, and 4572.2 km from North pole.
Latitude of New York is 40.73 degrees north. It means 4525.5 km from Equator, and 5474.5 km from North pole.
Angle between their meridians is 2.35 degrees east + 74.00 degrees west = 76.35 degrees.

If Earth is flat we would have simple triangle with two known sides and the angle between them.

Third side would be SQRT(4572.2^2 + 5474.5^2 - 2*4572.2*5474.5*cos(76.35)) = 6249.9 km
If we extend both meridians from North pole to Equator, we have another triangle, with two sides of 10 000 km each and angle between them again 76.35 degrees.
Tetive connecting the two points at Equator is 12 361 km long.

Measured ground speed of subsolar point for equinox shows that circumference of Equator is 24 900 miles, or 40 072 km.
It gives length of 76.35 degrees arc to be 76.35 * 40072 / 360 = 8498.6 km long.

So, arc is nearly 8500 km long, and its tetive is 12 360 km long ?
Can arc be shorter than its tetive ? ? ?
Does Flat Earth model work?

Maybe "perspective" ?
kekeke

[inquisitive]

Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!

What do you believe the distance to be? You must have some idea.