41

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Flat Earth Scientific Proof

« on: February 21, 2023, 03:04:10 PM »

https://unshackledminds.com/convex-earth-the-documentary-the-flat-earth-scientific-proof/

No curvature with multiple tests.

The lies of a Globe are just that. ALL LIES

I scrubbed through the video. What's weird is that they don't show any of the results of any of the "tests". They just talk about them, but never actually reveal anything. Did you actually watch the video?

The results are where you usually find them...at the end.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 21, 2023, 03:02:36 PM »

But its the round earthers and occasional pilots and frequent fliers that are the ones claiming to see a curve from left to right its they who you should be addressing.

Frequent flyers and airline pilots that make that claim must have been into the free booze.  Maybe the odd test pilot of hypersonic, experimental ultra high-altitude aircraft might get a glimpse of a curve.

So, the OP's question was to flat earthers.  Flat earthers claim that since they do not see a curvature, the earth must be flat.  On the other side of the fence people say that, since the earth is ginormous and we are tiny, we should not be able to see a curvature.  In essence we are okay and unshaken by that same observation.

Let's say you were out on the middle of the pacific ocean, bobbing up and down in an inner tube, and, for the sake of argument, the world was as science say's it is.  What would you (as a flat earther) need to see that would confirm to you the earth was indeed a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter?

In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: January 01, 2023, 05:08:24 PM »

Why can't people understand that the curvature is away from the viewer in every direction?
Am I expecting too much of peoples' intelligence?

I'd really like to see a flat earther's response to this ... anyone out there

Yes, and no.

Flat Earthers will never face up to simple little things that might pierce their comfort zone.

But its the round earthers and occasional pilots and frequent fliers that are the ones claiming to see a curve from left to right its they who you should be addressing.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: December 30, 2022, 08:35:22 PM »

Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth.
What I am wondering is what sort of curvature would you expect to see... would it be in a north south direction? An east west direction?

If you expect to see curvature what happens when you are in the middle of the ocean (or somewhere else where you could see the horizon in all directions) and turn around 360 degrees? Would you expect to see the horizon at a lower level when you have turned 180 degrees and then rise up again as you complete your 360 degree rotation?

Just wondering what the flat earth believers expect to see when they look at the horizon and declare "It's flat, no curvature there". But especially what would you expect to see if you could turn around 360 degrees and see the horizon in all directions. Isn't a flat horizon as you rotate around 360 degrees what you would expect to see if the earth is a sphere?

Because the flat horizon is the major point which seems to persuade people that the earth is flat. But it seems illogical to me that people would expect to see a curve down to either side when eg viewing a picture of the horizon.
Yet in reality there is curvature, but just not side to side as we look toward the horizon, instead the earth curves away from you - in every direction - as you look toward the horizon and rotate 360 degrees. And the fact that you could climb the crows nest of a ship and see further is irrefutable - after all isn't that why they had crows nests in the first place? "Land Ahoy!" So that they could see further over the horizon to see other ships coming or land in the distance. And also the curvature over the horizon is the reason lighthouses are built very tall?

If you were in the middle of the ocean,  you would be  in the middle of a circle.
The distance to the horizon is the same in all directions.
If you were in a lifeboat just above the level of the sea, the distance to the horizon would be about 2 1/2 or 3 miles and you would be in the middle of a  circle with a diameter of about 5 or 6 miles.
If you were in a crow's rest on s ship , 100 feet above the sea. you would be in a circle about 25 miles in diameter.
Certain radar antennas are also placed on the highest masts so that they can "see" the greatest distance.
The curvature of the earth must also be taken into account for the maximum spacing of certain microwave relay statiions.
But flat earth says that you would never see the horizon no matter how low or high you were, but you would only see "a blur which fades away at some indefinite distance."
This is just one of many of the most glaring and most obvious fallacies of flat earth fallacies.

I've seen so many photos of horizons both here and on YouTube ... with the claim "Looks flat to me ... no curvature there"
I just can't understand how anyone would expect to see the earth curve from left to right in a photo of the horizon.
It's just completely illogical to think it would curve downwards from one side to the other.
Why can't people understand that the curvature is away from the viewer in every direction?
Am I expecting too much of peoples' intelligence?
If it curved from left to right then we would be living on a cylinder ... but of course if you rotated yourself 180 degrees the horizon would then appear straight and curve away from you.

I'd really like to see a flat earther's response to this ... anyone out there

Just to correct you. If you stood as a very small person on a ball maybe the size of a house you would see curves all round you not just on front of you. The whole ball curves away from you in all directions no matter where you stand on it. Take a tennis ball in your hand and put a little black spot on it anywhere. Now move the ball so the spot is at the top (north) of the ball. And note how it curves away from that spot in every direction including 'down the sides'; not just 'ahead' of you like you suggest happens on the sea shore.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 14, 2022, 09:53:03 AM »

It was soo brief, appears to be a swell covering the hull with perspective issues also.

FLAT EARTH

Interesting.  A "soo brief" 30 second swell that is covering the distant ship yet there are no swells around the ship in the foreground.

The rear of the foreground ship is covered too.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 11:01:05 PM »

And those full shots - how do you know what the countries of the world look like after having only seen them on a rectangular drawing on the school room walls?

They seem to look awfully similar...
Yes one is copied from the other.

And those full shots - how do you know what the countries of the world look like after having only seen them on a rectangular drawing on the school room walls?

They seem to look awfully similar...

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 09:20:25 PM »

And Simon, you understand that although Sagarmatha (Everest) is the highest mountain, it doesn't just rise up to 8848 metres directly from sea level, like the Eiffel Tower.  Its in a mountain range, its surrounded by other mountains; its like the tallest man standing in a crowd of very tall men.   

Also, its not symmetrical.  When you find such a photo how will you define whether it is perpendicular to the horizon?   

Everest is 8848 metres above sea level. It doesnt matter how high it is relative to the ground it rises from.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 09:19:08 PM »

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile.

Back to reply #16 in this thread.

The water pictured CANNOT be flat, for the reasons I stated in reply #16 and those which follow. It cannot be concave, as that would exacerbate those reasons. So it must be convex. Curved.

Must be? Or is?

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 09:18:02 PM »

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile. That is 8/63360ths of a mile. Yet we won't see a mountain peak which is a 727th of the 4000 unit radius?
You can do anything with statistics.

I don’t claim that, no. I believe that is a rule of thumb, which you have slightly misquoted - it’s per mile squared.

Emphasis on rule of thumb though - it’s not accurate, and it gets less accurate the further away you go.

Let’s try this again. Draw a circle of 8 inches diameter on a piece of paper. That is earth. You can write N and S to indicate the poles, and a line across the middle to show the equator.

Now let’s try to draw the situation you describe. Get a protractor and measure 28 degrees around from the equator towards the North Pole - mark it off on the edge of circle. That’s Everest’s latitude. Now draw a mountain sticking out from the earth by 5.5 thousandths of an inch. Let me know how you get on, bearing in mind that your pen or pencil is probably making lines substantially thicker than Everest is high.

Its ok for you to tell me its a rule of thumb that I am using when you are using a rule of thumb for the diameter of the earth?

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 09:16:42 PM »

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile. That is 8/63360ths of a mile. Yet we won't see a mountain peak which is a 727th of the 4000 unit radius?
You can do anything with statistics.

I don’t claim that, no. I believe that is a rule of thumb, which you have slightly misquoted - it’s per mile squared.

Emphasis on rule of thumb though - it’s not accurate, and it gets less accurate the further away you go.

Let’s try this again. Draw a circle of 8 inches diameter on a piece of paper. That is earth. You can write N and S to indicate the poles, and a line across the middle to show the equator.

Now let’s try to draw the situation you describe. Get a protractor and measure 28 degrees around from the equator towards the North Pole - mark it off on the edge of circle. That’s Everest’s latitude. Now draw a mountain sticking out from the earth by 5.5 thousandths of an inch. Let me know how you get on, bearing in mind that your pen or pencil is probably making lines substantially thicker than Everest is high.

Yes but science is not based on miniscule scale models its based on fact. Of course I wont see anything at that scale. But on the total scale of the earth I expect to see something projecting from 'ground level'. Dont you?

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 09:14:10 PM »

The first thing I found was a set of photos of a flat earth with the title 'EarthDisc' and not Earth Orb.

Yes, that's their term for a view in which you can see the full circumference, as opposed to detail shots which pick out small portions of the surface

You did notice that none of those full shots show all the countries of the world, didn't you?

Its ok for NASA to term it a disc. But not anyone else? Is that what you are saying?

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 09:13:05 PM »

The first thing I found was a set of photos of a flat earth with the title 'EarthDisc' and not Earth Orb.

Yes, that's their term for a view in which you can see the full circumference, as opposed to detail shots which pick out small portions of the surface

You did notice that none of those full shots show all the countries of the world, didn't you?

So its ok to say that anything you think is orbitting the round earth is going full circumference round a flat earth (whether you believe FE or not is it ok to describe it as such thereby leaving the key word 'orbit' out of the description)?

And those full shots - how do you know what the countries of the world look like after having only seen them on a rectangular drawing on the school room walls?

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 01:30:13 PM »

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile. That is 8/63360ths of a mile. Yet we won't see a mountain peak which is a 727th of the 4000 unit radius?
You can do anything with statistics.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 01:20:02 PM »

The lack of close up shots of the earth is a bit like someone taking the 5th amendment or saying 'no comment' in a police interview.

There is no lack of them. There are thousands upon thousands.  They just might not fit EXACTLY the criteria that you want to impose, post-flight, on the photographer(s). The lack of those which fit exactly the criteria you've outlined in the last few days is not, of itself, any sort of disproof of globe earth, nor a proof of flat.

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/

Good link that - a great help. The first thing I found was a set of photos of a flat earth with the title 'EarthDisc' and not Earth Orb.
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ShowQueryResults-Lightcycle.pl?results=EarthDisc

Are you saying its not possible to orbit around a flat disk? Are you? Really?

It's in the etymology and the definitions. Orb-it. Round an orb.
Definitions; the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution; one complete circuit round an orbited body; the state of moving in an orbit.
If you can find the flat star, planet or moon, then I might accept that there could be an orbit around it, but for the time being, science says they're all broadly spherical.

Oh dear thats a tad pedantic surely. Its only called orbit because scientists think the earths an orb.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 10:40:12 AM »

[
'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

Something like this?

https://www.businessinsider.com/mount-everest-himalayas-astronaut-photos-2016-6

I’m not really clear why the ‘projection’ aspect of this gives you the proof. You’ve already dismissed other photos as fake, so wouldn’t you just say it was fake as well?

Moreover, I’m not sure if the kind of photo you’re after is even possible - Everest is a big mountain (elevation approx 5.5 statute miles), but it’s tiny in comparison to the earth, so any picture that shows an appreciable component of the globe (radius approx 4000 statute miles) isn’t going to really show Everest itself very much. You also have the problem that the more oblique the photo, the more haze layer you have to photograph through, and the fuzzier the image.

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 10:35:34 AM »

'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

Just out of curiosity, have you tried doing a Google search for commercial satellite imagery?  It's a multi-billion dollar industry and I'm thinking that their customers would be more than just a bit irate if all of that imagery turned out to be fake.

Just their customers? Wouldnt you be irate too?

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 10:34:49 AM »

Again the question from a couple of hours ago;

"What would it take to persuade you that you are wrong?"

4 October 1957, Russia launched humankind's first orbital satellite. The Americans, primarily, wanted to know where it was at any one time, so their boffins used doppler techniques to track it, and narrowed down the orbital time and path using them. They found it had a regular 90min interval between appearances. What a coincidence, that's pretty much the same as the ISS. How would that happen, other than by them both being orbital objects?

Since then, there have been thousands of craft launched from Earth into orbit and into other trajectories. You don't REALLY think all the people involved are ... pretending? in the dark?  do you? Really?

Are you saying its not possible to orbit around a flat disk? Are you? Really?

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 10:32:39 AM »

'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away.

Yes. None of which requires leaving our planet. And we can only see the big craters on the Moon. The craters the size of Everest are invisible.

But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe.  That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

It requires leaving the planet. That is an expensive undertaking. Nobody is going to do that to satisfy you, not on the basis of around 60 posts here, not on the basis of what you've said, and certainly not on the basis of the forum you've asked in.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

You can dress this up as a big failing of "globe earth proof" if you want.... you can hint at this being the only globe proof that would be acceptable, but neither of those really cut it.

Plenty of globe proofs gathered since the time of Copernicus, possibly earlier.

There are however plenty of things leaving the planet and or floating around it. I wasnt simply asking someone to go take a pic. The lack of close up shots of the earth is a bit like someone taking the 5th amendment or saying 'no comment' in a police interview. There is ample opportunity to 'hover' level with the equator from a decent enough distance and the zoom in with a decent camera (not one of Armstrongs instamatics) photograph what is there sticking out from the edge of the earth. Its not rocket science :-)

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 10:24:29 AM »

I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

I'm not sure I'm following "No formulas, equations, theories or experiments.". There are plenty.

For instance, in this FE/RE comparison calculator we have a 3000' mountain, 25 miles away with an observer height of about 6.5'.

In the RE model, the mountain bottom is obscured by the earth by about 319'. More importantly is the tilt, which I think is what you have been referencing - The tilt of the object away from the observer. As you can see, given the large size of the earth the "tilt", given all the parameters, is approximately 0.36°. Which is imperceptible to the human eye.

That is simply a model though based an a RE theory? It doesnt prove anything it shows what things would look like if the earth was round.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 12, 2022, 10:05:32 PM »

I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.